The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees.
The appellant herein is a nationalized Bank.
On 29.08.2006, the Public Information Officer of the Bank expressed his inability to furnish the details sought by respondent No.
Felt aggrieved, respondent No.1 carried the matter in further appeal before the Central Information Commission.
In our companysidered opinion, the issue involved herein remains numbermore res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner Ors.,
Respondent No.1, felt aggrieved, filed appeal before the Chief Public Information Officer.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
2013 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India Anr.,
Against the said order, the appellant Bank filed writ petition before the High Court.
This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his her joining to the Branch where he she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc.
Challenging the said order, the appellant Bank filed writ appeal before the High Court.
By order dated 30.09.2006, the Chief Public Information Officer agreeing with the view taken by the Public Information Officer dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Public Information Officer.
The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant Bank.
By impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellants writ appeal and affirmed the order of the Central Information Commission, which has given rise to filing of this appeal.
In Girish Ramchandra Deshpandes case supra , the petitioner therein Girish had sought some personal information of one employee working in Sub Regional Office provident fund Akola.
1 as, in his view, firstly, the information sought was protected from being disclosed under Section 8 1 j of the Act and secondly, it had numbernexus with any public interest or activity.
Respondent No.
On 01.08.2006, respondent No.1 submitted an application to the Public Information Officer of the appellant Bank under Section 6 of the Act and sought information regarding transfer and posting of the entire clerical staff from 01.01.2002 to 31.07.2006 in all the branches of the appellant Bank.
By order dated 26.02.2007, the appeal was allowed and accordingly directions were issued to the Bank to furnish the information sought by respondent No.1 in his application.
1, at the relevant time, was working in the said Branch as a clerical staff.
All the authorities, exercising their respective powers under the Act, declined the prayer for furnishing the information sought by the petitioner.
It has a branch in District Malappuram in the State of Kerala.
2013 14 SCC 794, it may number be necessary to re examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 20.09.2007 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No.
Aggrieved by all the order, he filed special leave to appeal in this Court.
