Central Information CommissionS Gnanambika vs Southern Railway on 4 October, 2017क य सच ू ना आयोग
                  CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                        लब बि डंग (पो ट ऑ फस केपास)
                       Club Building (Near Post Office)
                     ओ ड जेन यू कपस, नई !द ल -110067
                     Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
                       Tel: +91-11-26182593/26182594
                       Email:[email protected]File No.: CIC/AB /A/2016/001333-AB

In the matter of:

Smti S Gnanambika                                             ...Appellant
                                             VS
PIO and Sr. DPO, Southern Railway,
DRM's Office, George Town, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu- 600003                                            ...Respondent
                                             Dates
RTI application                      :       22.09.2015
CPIO reply                           :       19.10.2015
First Appeal                         :       02.11.2015
FAA Order                            :       03.12.2015
Second Appeal                        :       25.01.2016
Date of hearing                      :       26.09.2017


Facts:The appellant vide RTI application dated 22.09.2015 sought information on 4
points; date/month/year of her husband's retirement from railway service,
break-up of the retirement benefits, monthly pension, communication address,
PPO number, bank details and the settlement amount he received from the
respondent authorities, etc. The CPIO denied the informationu/s 8(1)(j)of the
RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) and1(e) of theRTI Act. On being aggrieved, the appellant filed second appeal before
this Commission on 25.01.2016.Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.Order


      Appellant           :     Present

      Respondent          :     PIO, Shri Vaidyanathan, DPODuring the hearing the respondent PIO submitted that they had provided
the requisite information vide their letter dated 19.10.2015    which is just and
proper and hence the case should be dismissed.      The appellant submitted that
she was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent.Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the
respondent authority, the appellant filed a second appeal under the provision of
thesection 19(3)of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on
25.01.2016.On perusal of the case record, it is seen that although it was an interim
reply, the sought for information is clearly coveredu/s 8(1)(j)of the RTI Act
being third party's personal information in nature and the Commission is bound
by the Apex Court Judgement in the matter ofGirish Ramchandra Vs. Otherswhich is reinforced by the latest judgement in the matter of Canara Bank Vs.
CIC on 31.08.2017 in respect of government servant's personal details. Hence,
the reply provided is just, proper, in time and comprehensive as the exemption
claimed undersection 8(i) (j)of the RTI Act is proper. Hence, nothing much
remains in this case and the interference of the Commission is not called for.2With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.[Amitava Bhattacharyya]
                                                    Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy


(A.K. Talapatra)
Deputy Registrar3