Central Information Commission
M S Rao vs Dredging Corporation Of India Limited, ... on 10 May, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DCOIL/C/2020/689789
M S RAO ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Dredging Corporation of India
Limited, RTI Cell, Dredge
House, Town Kotha Rd, Beside
Central Excise, Port Area,
Visakhapatnam, Andhra
Pradesh-530005. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02/05/2023
Date of Decision : 02/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 22/07/2020
CPIO replied on : 11/08/2020
First appeal filed on : 09/09/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 13/10/2020
Complaint dated : 20/10/2020
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.07.2020 seeking the following information:1
"Details of Performance Related Pay (PRP) paid to Executives worked for DCIL in the rank of GM and above i.e., GM, CGM, Director / CVO, MD/CMD) for the last 5 years. i.e.. FY 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 in t I. Name of the Executive :
2. Designation :
3. Date of Joining :
4. Date of Retirement/ Leaving :
3. PRP for the Year :
4. Basic Pay :
5. PRP Amount paid :
6. PRP Amount withheld (Reasons for withholding, if any):
7. Date of Actual Payment:"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant 11.08.2020 stating as under:
"....information sought by you relates to third party. Hence, the same cannot be furnished."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed First Appeal dated 09.09.2020. FAA's order, dated 13.10.2020, held as under:
"As requested, please find enclosed herewith the information regarding the monthly remuneration of our employees including the system of compensation."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: V. Rao, Manager (HR) & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Commission remarked that the Complainant vide letter dated 30.04.2023 sought for adjournment of hearing. However, considering the efflux of time and for giving due opportunity to the Complainant, he was heard through audio mode. Further, to a query from the Commission regarding briefing of the instant matter, 2 he expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply and contested the fact that information sought w.r.t details of the PRP of the Executives of the Organization should be in the public domain considering the provisions of the suo moto disclosure as per RTI Act.
The CPIO submitted that same RTI Application has already been heard and disposed of by this bench on 29.12.2022 vide case file no. CIC/DCOIL/A/2020/689787 with the following observations -
"....Decision:
In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission observes from a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application that the CPIO had appropriately denied the Details of performance related pay (PRP) paid to the Executives of DCIL in the rank of GM and above i.e., GM, CGM, Director/CVO, MD/CMD) to the Appellant; however, the same should have been denied quoting Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information"
envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. 3 C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Having observed as above, the contention raised by the Appellant regarding accessibility of third party's records from public domain being in public service is rendered inconsequential.
Thus, no relief can be ordered in the matter.
However , the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue his grievance regarding anomaly in PRP through administrative mechanism."
Decision The Commission upon a perusal of records and considering the applicability of ratio of above mentioned decision, finds no scope of further intervention in the matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 5