Central Information Commission
Amar Chandra Chatterjee vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 9 September, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/638529
Amar Chandra Chatterjee ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: UCO Bank, Kolkata ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 13.04.2023 FA : 19.06.2023 SA : 07.08.2023
CPIO : 07.06.2023 FAO : 17.07.2023 Hearing : 04.09.2024
Date of Decision: 06.09.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
a. "Provide full data details of pensioners and family pensioners which are provided to the Actuary by the Bank as on 31.03.2022, 30.09.2022 and 31.12.2022. If required, the undersigned may appear in the relevant office with pen drive at his cost.Page 1 of 4
b. Provide full details of active staff pension optee as on 31.03.2022, 30.09.2022 and 31.12.2022 as provided to the Actuary for calculation. If called, the undersigned may appear in your office with a pen drive to collect the data. c. Provide name and address of the Actuary with copies of Full Acturial Report of Pension Fund as on 21.03.2022 and 31.12.2022."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Point (a) & (b) - Since data provided to Actuary contains personal information of Pensioners / Family Pensioners / Active Staff pension Optee, hence the same cannot be parted with as the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
However, we are providing the count of Pensioners, Family Pensioners and Active Staff Pension Optee whose data have been provided to Actuary.
Sl. Particulars 31.03.2022 30.09.2022 31.12.2022 1 No. of Normal 22370 22446 22452 Pensioners 2 No. of Family 6986 7188 7266 Pensioners 3 No. of Active 5023 4574 4416 Staff Pension Optee Point (c) - Name and Address of Actuary is as follows:
Dr. R. Kannan 1-A, "Sriram" 4, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai - 600041.."Page 2 of 4
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.06.2023. The FAA's order dated 17.07.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 07.08.2023.
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, V K Thappa, AGM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Appellant stated that the denial of the information deeming it to be third party information is not correct as the documents sought for by him are bank's own documents and not documents supplied by any third party. That, the information sought concerns the welfare of the larger community of pensioners and therefore ought to be disclosed.
7. The Respondent submitted that the permissible information was provided to the Appellant and reiterated the denial of the further details of the pensioners as per Section 8(1)(J) of the RTI Act.
8. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has appropriately denied the details of the third-party pensioners under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission draws the attention of the Appellant towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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. 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 & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
Page 3 of 4"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..."
9. Having observed as above, no relief is warranted in the matter.
10. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 06.09.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO UCO Bank, AGM & CPIO, H.R.M. Department, Head Office, 4th Floor, 10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata, W. B.- 700001
2. Amar Chandra Chatterjee Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)