Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Wife's application under the RTI Act for pay records of her husband, a government employee, was granted by the Central Information Commission. The appellant filed an application with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), United India Insurance Company Limited, Pune, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), seeking the following information: “Please submit salary/pay grade details for Mr. Aniket V Palkandwar, Channel Manager.” The CPIO declined application to release information, citing "Personal Information" as an excuse. The appellant filed the first appeal and then a second appeal with the Central Commission under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, demanding that appropriate legal action be taken against the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, and that he be directed to deliver the requested information. The CPIO declined application to release information, citing "Personal Information" as an excuse. The appellant filed the first appeal and then a second appeal with the Central Commission under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, demanding that appropriate legal action be taken against the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, and that he be directed to deliver the requested information. According to the appellant, a government employee's compensation cannot be considered personal information because it must be provided suo motu under Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act, 2005. As a result, the respondent should be asked to give him with information about her spouse, Mr. Aniket V Palkandwar, Channel Manager's income and pay grade. The respondent indicated that they have claimed an exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 for classifying the salary/pay grade of another person as third-party personal information. Sri Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Information Commissioner of CIC discovered that in regards for disclose of remuneration of the partner, Division Bench of Hon’ble HC of MP vide its choice dated 15-05- 2018 withinside the count number of Smt. Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain and others, W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others, W.A. No. 170/2015 has held that partner an are seeking such info beneathneath RTI. As a result, based on the legal position set forth in the case of Smt. Sunita Jain (Supra), the Commission ordered the respondent to disclose Mr. Aniket V Palkandwar's "gross income" to the appellant within 15 working days of receiving the decision, without providing any deduction details.
Tags : RTI , Government Employee , Information
Allow Cookies!By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.