Central Information Commission
T Siva Pragash vs Ut Of Puducherry on 23 May, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UTPON/A/2024/104483
T Siva Pragash .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Directorate of Higher and
Technical Education,
Centralised Admission
Committee, Kamarajar
Manimandapam, Karuvadikuppam,
Puducherry - 605008 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.05.2025
Date of Decision : 23.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.10.2023
PIO replied on : 17.11.2023, 18.11.2024 and 24.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 07.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.01.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
"1. Details of Place of Service rendered by Mr. Mailavelan, Assistant, from January 2000 to till date
2. Details of additional work allocated to Mr. Mailavelan in CENTAC and Puducherry State Higher Education Council for RUSA related work.
3. Details of amount paid as honorarium/remuneration to Mr. Mailavelan to carry out additional work allocated in CENTAC and Puducherry State Higher Education Council for the past five years.
4. Details of payment made as honorarium/ remuneration to the staff engaged to carry out CENTAC work for the past five years.
5. Details of income submitted by Mr. Mailavelan in statement of income tax calculation submitted for the past five assessment years.
6. Details of deputation allowance paid to Mr. Mailavelan by PONSHE office from the date of engagement as superintendent to till date.
7. Details of amount sanctioned to Tagore Arts and Science College, Puducherry under RUSA scheme to carry out civil/infrastructure development work.
8. Details of expenditure made by Tagore Arts and Science College through the funds allocated under RUSA scheme.
9. Details of works allocated to Mr. Mailavelan in related to Puducherry Technological University.
10. Name and designation of the staff engaged in DHTE to prepare/scrutiny the grant in aid proposal in respect of Puducherry Technological University.
11. Name and designation of the staff engaged in DHTE to scrutiny the CAS proposal of the Puducherry Technological University.
12. Details of funds allocated to Tagore Arts and Science College under DHTE budget for creation of infrastructure facilities.
13. Details of leave salary, gratuity and pension contribution made to Mr. Mailavelan from PONSHE grant in aid,
14. Details of file noting prepared by Mr. Mailavelan, to appoint Principal in-charges in PONSHE colleges.
15. Details of LTC amount paid to Mr. Mailavelan from PONSHE grant in aid"
2. The PIO, Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 17.11.2023 stating as under:
Page 2 of 6"5. The information sought for relates to personal information with no larger public interest involved hence cannot be furnished, under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005
12. The information is available at the Website:
https://budget.py.gov.in"
3. The PIO, O/o Pondicherry Society for Higher Education furnished a point- wise reply to the Appellant on 17.11.2023 stating as under:
"6. 5% of Basic Pay of Thiru D. Mailavelan, Supdt. (on Deputation), is being paid as Deputation Allowance from the date of appointment in PONSHE to till date.
As of now Basic Pay: Rs.50,500/-
Dept. Allowance: 2,525/-
13. Leave Salary remitted so far: Rs.1,26,893/- Gratuity: Nil Pension Contribution remitted so far: Rs. 2,55,818/-
14. No material information of file notings prepared by D. Mailavelan, Superintendent to appoint Principal in charge in PONSHE colleges is available on records. As such in terms of Section 2(f) read with 2(j) of RTI Act, 2005, it is hardly feasible to furnish the required information.
15. Thiru D. Mailavelan, Supdt. (on deputation) have not claimed LTC so far in this office."
4. Shri V. Nithyakal Yani, Superintendent-cum- PIO, Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 18.11.2023 stating as under:
"1,9,10,11 Application transferred to the PIO (Estt.), DHTE for furnishing information.
5,12 Application transferred to the PIO (Accts.), DHTE for furnishing information.
2 Information related to RUSA are enclosed (Annexure-l) and for information related to CENTAC, the application has been forwarded to the PIO, CENTAC.Page 3 of 6
3 Information related to RUSA are enclosed (Annexure-I) and for information related to CENTAC, the application has been forwarded to the PIO, CENTAC.
4 Application transferred to the PIO, CENTAC for furnishing information.
6,13,14,15 Application transferred to the PIO, PONSHE for furnishing information.
7,8 Information enclosed (Annexure-II). "
5. The PIO, O/o Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC), furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 24.11.2023 stating as under:
"Point 2. In CENTAC, Mr. Mailavelan undertakes Admission work. Point 3 2018-2019-Rs. 6,000/-
2019-2020 Rs. 15,000/-
2020-2021-Rs. 25,000/-
2021-2022-Rs. 60,000/-
2022-2023-Rs. 55,000/-
Point 4. 2018-2019-Rs. 15,21,250/-
2019-2020 Rs. 20,73,500/-
2020-2021-Rs. 14,36,000/-
2021-2022-Rs. 20,05,000/-
2022-2023-Rs. 22,58,000/-"
6. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 05.01.2024, held as under:
"The Appellant Thiru T. Siva Pragash, residing at No. 165, Guber Street, Ashok Nagar, Lawspet, Puducherry 605008, had submitted RTI application in Form I on 20.10.2023 to the Public Information Officer, Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, Puducherry under Right to Information Act, 2005. The Superintendent -cum- Public Information Officer, Technical Section, DHTE has transferred the RTI application to the Public Information Officer, Account Section, DHTE with request to furnish reply directly to the appellant in respect of SL. No. 5, 10 & 12 vide I.D. Note No.3054/DHTE/Tech/T1/2023/37, dt.24.10.2023.Page 4 of 6
The Public Information Officer has furnished the reply under RTI Act, 2005 in Form - 3, vide No.4770/DHTE/Accts/A3/2023, dt. 14.11.2023. At this juncture, the applicant has filed an Appeal to the undersigned on
07.12.2023 stating that not satisfied with the reply furnished by the PIO in respect of Sl. No.5.
After having gone through the appeal petition, it is ascertained that in respect of Sl. No. 5 reply furnished by the PIO is found to be correct under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly and the file is consigned to record."
7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, Superintendent-cum-PIO, appeared through video conference.
8. The Appellant inter alia submitted that information sought on point No. 5 of the RTI application was arbitrarily denied by the Respondent Authority. He, therefore, requested the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide the information on point No. 5 of the RTI application free of cost.
9. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they have provided point-wise information/replies to the Appellant vide letters dated 17.11.2023, 18.11.2024 and 24.11.2023. As regards point No. 5 of the RTI application, the Respondent submitted that information sought pertained to personal information of third party namely Mr. Mailavelan, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, the information was denied under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observed that point-
Page 5 of 6wise information/replies were given by the Respondent Authority vide letters dated 17.11.2023, 18.11.2024 and 24.11.2023. The Appellant pressed for point No. 5 of the RTI application only. As regards the specific contention of the appellant concerning point No. 5, the Commission agrees with the respondent's invocation of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Income tax calculation sheet in the employer's record constitutes personal information, and in the absence of any demonstrable larger public interest, such information is rightly exempt from disclosure.
11. In view of the above, the Commission finds no infirmity in the response provided by the CPIO or the order passed by the FAA.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, Lawspet, Puducherry - 605008 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)