Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/003166
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 9th February 2016
Date of decision : 9th February 2016
Name of the Appellant : Smt. G. K. Smitha,
W/o. shri G. K. V. Prasad Babu,
H. No. 186244/45, O/s. Gowalipura,
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Canara Bank,
Circle Office, Nagpur “Guman” Residency Road, Sada Bazar, DisttNagpur, Maharashtra 440001
RTI Application filed on : 14/09/2013
CPIO replied on : 21/10/2013
First Appeal filed on : 23/11/2013
First Appellate Authority order on : 19/12/2013
2nd Appeal received on : 24/12/2014
The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Rangareddy. No one was present on behalf of the Respondents.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal
This matter, pertaining to an RTI application filed by the Appellant, seeking a copy of the salary certificate of her husband, came up today. The information had been denied by the CPIO under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act and his decision was upheld by the FAA.
2. No one was present on behalf of the Respondents in spite of a written notice having been sent to them. The Appellant stated that she got married on 13.2.2011 to Shri G. K. Veera Prasad Babu, a Probationary Officer of the Canara Bank, working at Nagpur at the time of filing of the RTI application. She alleged that she was mistreated and turned out of the house of her husband, who sent her legal notices for mutual divorce later on. She further submitted that a case concerning the maintenance due to her is pending in a Family Court and she needs the information in the above context. She also prayed for imposition of penalty on the CPIO for denying the information and payment of a suitable compensation to her in view of the fact that in the absence of the information sought by her, she has not been able to get an appropriate amount of maintenance from her husband.
3. We have considered the records and the submissions of the Appellant and note that the salary slip of the officer concerned would contain not only the information CIC/SH/A/2014/003166 concerning the gross salary being received by him, but also regarding the various deductions being made from the same. The information concerning deductions is his personal information. Therefore, going strictly by the provisions of the RTI Act, we cannot fault the decision of the Respondents to deny a copy of the salary certificate, which would contain all the above details. In view of the foregoing, we see no ground either to consider a penalty under Section 20 in this case or to award compensation to the Appellant. However, at the same time, we note that as per Section 4 (1) (b) (x) of the RTI Act, each public authority is required to publish / disclose the information concerning the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations.
4. In view of the foregoing, the information concerning the gross monthly remuneration received by the above officer cannot be regarded as his personal information. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant the information concerning the gross monthly remuneration of the above mentioned officer, together with the amount of the individual components that it is composed of. The information concerning the monthly deductions being made from the gross remuneration need not be provided. The CPIO should provide the information as above, free of charge, within fifteen days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
5. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar