Jump to content
  • 0

Rejection on Sec. 8(1)(J)


vijaypandeyllb

Question

vijaypandeyllb

Dear Sir

 

I have filed an RTI before the CPIO Income Tax seeking an information about a person who retired 4 years back but surprisingly working on extension till date. So far I know nobody can get extension over 2 year period so there is some thing illegal going on there. When I received the reply of CPIO rejecting the application as this is a personal information , I prefered appeal but surprisingly the Appellate Authority asked me to prove my case as how you came tom know about the same. The person in question is no more a regular employee of IT , hence provide the help in taking further action.

 

Vijay

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Prasad GLN

Employee's appointment, salary particulars are not personal information. Make a direct complaint to CIC, as IT never provides information to any RTI Applicant (Common and not for influential or otherwise) and several of applications made to them ends with CIC decisions only. So, please post the specific information sought by you in brief, and depending on the particulars, our members may suggest for going on for second appeal as it is or for filing fresh application by reconstructing the application contents.

(This is the one problem with PIOs, in most of these cases instead of replying to the point, even when information can be given in one sentence, they raise several irrelevant issues and seek information from applicant as though citizens are servants and criminals and ultimately many do not provide the one sentence information solicited in their several pages information with comments/remarks/counters)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
.....I have filed an RTI before the CPIO Income Tax seeking an information about a person who retired 4 years back but surprisingly working on extension till date.

 

What type of information?

 

Note:

a) Information that can be disclosed : CIC order dated 21-03-2012 F.No. CIC/AD/A/2012/000739 ( http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_AD_A_2012_000739_M_79229.pdf )

 

‘service book’ of a government servant which includes date of appointment, place of

posting, details of increment in salary etc. etc. & all that should be available through suo motu disclosure by PA, even without filing RTI.

 

 

 

b) Information that cannot be disclosed : Hon'ble SC order dated 03-10-2012 ( SLP (civil) No. 27734 of 2012, G. R. Deshpandey Vs CIC)

 

"Personal information" like details of nominees,deductions from monthly pay bills, insurance details, show cause notices and censure/punishment, movable and immovable properties and also the details of investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions, details of gifts received, performance of an employee/officer, income tax returns, etc.

 

The above items may be disclosed with "larger public interest"

 

 

R K Mishra

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
sharmajee

Please share contents of your application to exactly understand what information did you demand. Did you also demand norms of the office/ department for retired personnel to seek extension of his service or keeping any retired person on service whether temporary/ extension or on contract post retirement.

 

If not seek this now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Super Moderator
RAVEENA_O

The question raised by the learned Counsel for Girish Deshpande was :

8. Learned counsel also submitted that the privacy appended to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act widens the scope of documents warranting disclosure and if those provisions are properly interpreted, it could not be said that documents pertaining to employment of a person holding the post of enforcement officer could be treated as documents having no relationship to any public activity or interest.

 

The findings of Hon'ble SC on this issue are :

 

13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

 

14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

 

15. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

 

16. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.

 

SC pronounced above order on 03-Oct-2013. (Read 03-Oct-2012)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

@Raveena ji

 

Madam kindly evince the items that i might have missed or miscalled in my post#3 (para b), as i extracted from the pronounced SC order.

 

SC pronounced above order on 03-Oct-2013.

 

I think that should be on 03-Oct-2012.

 

 

Regards

 

R K Mishra

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love RTI INDIA- Online RTI? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      119,538
    • Total Posts
      427,401
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy