Information about salary of employee of public authority is not third party information and can be disclosed under RTI

Central Information Commission (CIC): While holding that information about the salary of an employee of a public authority is not third party information and such information has to be voluntarily disclosed u/s 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act, CIC directed Home Department of Delhi Government to provide salary slip of the husband of applicant wife who sought information about husband’s salary particulars for the purpose of maintenance claim. CIC also opined that every spouse has a right to information about the particulars of salary of other spouse especially for the purpose of maintenance, more so, when he is an employee of the public authority.
Earlier, the applicant approached the authorities of Home (General) department seeking information regarding salary slip and other allowances like TA, DA and HRA of her husband but was denied the said information on the grounds that the information belonged to third party and being a personal information that could be refused under Section 8(1)(j). Strongly deprecating the practice of denying information about salary with mala fide intentions either to harass the spouse or delay the process of justice or to avoid payment of money necessary for maintenance, CIC held that the husband as an earning member of family has a legal duty to maintain the wife and children and even after the divorce, the family law ordains that husband has a duty to provide for necessary maintenance of the wife and children. CIC also observed that Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code mandated that husband has a general duty to maintain wife and children and thus the wife’s entitlement to know the salary particulars of her husband gets further fortified by all the above legal provisions. “In addition to above, under Section 20, Right to Information Act 2005, such a denial of information will be wrongful denial which could incur the penalty”, CIC added. (Jyoti Seherawat v. Home (General) Deptt., File No. CIC/AD/A/2012/003341SA, decided on January 7, 2014)1
Read full judgment here

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION




Date of decision : 7.1.2014
Information Commissioner :
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
(Madabhushi Sridhar)
Referred Sections
:   Sec.4(1)(b)(x),   8(1)(j)   and   11(1)   of
                                         the RTI Act.
Result
:
Appeal allowed
Headnote
i)
Information about the salary of an employee of a public
authority   is
not third party information.  Such information has
to be voluntarily disclosed
u/s
4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act.
ii)
Every spouse has a right to information about the particulars
of
salary of other spouse especially for the purpose of  maintenance.     More   so,
wife has a right to know the salary  particulars   of   the   husband,   who   is   an
employee of the public
authority.
FACTS
Heard today dated 7.1.14. Appellant not present.  The Public Authority
is represented by Shri Anil Agrawal, Supdt. Home (General) Department and
Shri Sunil Kumar, Law Officer.
2.
The   Appellant   filed   an   RTI   application   dt.2.6.12   with   the   CPIO,   Home
General Department, GNCTD seeking the following information with regard to her
husband Shri Sudhir Singh Seherawat:
Salary slip for the month of May 2012 including all allowances like TA, DA
and HRA.
On not receiving any response, the Appellant filed an appeal dt.11.9.12
with the Appellate Authority.   The CPIO replied to the RTI application vide letter
dated 18.6.12 stating as follows:
It is informed that information can not be supplied as Shri Sudhir Singh,
Warder 642 has given in writing to this department that any information regarding
him will not be supplied
The CPIO’s reply dt.18.6.12 was dispatched to the Appellant on 20.9.12
and received by the Appellant on 23.9.12.
The Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal vide his order dt.26.9.12
upholding the decision of the PIO.
Being   aggrieved   with   the   reply,   the   Applicant   filed   a   second   appeal
dt.5.10.12 before CIC.
3.
During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that information was denied
since the third party has objected to its disclosure.   He, however, admitted that
same does not belong to third party and agreed to disclose the same.
4.
The   Commission   in   various   cases   has   directed   the   Public   Authority   to
disclose   the   salary   particulars   of   its   employees   to   the   information   seeker
irrespective of whether the information seeker is related to the employee or not.
Earlier   too,   CIC  has  directed  public   authorities   to  disclose  salary   particulars   of
husband to the wife. For instance, in Ritu Sharma v NTPC No. 1016/IC/(A)/2007
dated 11th July 2007, Prof MM Ansari held that denial of salary information about
husband by public authority invoking Section 8(1)(j) was not enable.   Under the
RTI   Act,   the   public   authorities   have   the   obligation   to   disclose   the   monthly
emoluments   paid   to   their   employees.     U/s   4(1)(b)(x)   of   the   Act,   “the   monthly
remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system
of   compensation   as   provided   in   its   regulations”   should   be   published.   A   similar
order is given by Mrs Sushma Singh (present Chief Information Commissioner) in
Smt Rita Aeri v Air India in CIC/SS/A/2010/001145 dated 21.3.2011.  In Lakshmi
Ramesh Sawekar v Dept of Posts, No.CIC/LS/A/2011/00276, Mr M L Sharma, IC
held on  23rd  January  2012  that a  legally  wedded wife  is  entitled  to information
about the salary of her husband.
5.
The   respondent   Home   Department   in   this   case   denied   the   salary
information of the husband, it’s employee to his wife. At two stages of RTI, the PIO
and Appellate Authority simply considered the salary information as third party;
same was also contended by the Law Officer before the Commission.
6.
In spite of specific decisions and directions by the CIC, the PIOs and AAs
are   repeatedly   denying   the   salary   particulars   to   the   wife   contending   that   this
information belonged to third party, or being a personal information that could be
refused under Section 8(1)(j) etc. The PIOs and AAs are disposing of the petitions
in a routine manner like general office file, without applying the reasons and their
orders   of   rejection   also   disclose   no   reasons.   This   also   explain   the   lack   of
understanding  and training  on the  issues  pertaining to  access  law  and various
judgments   rendered   on   the   subject   among   the   designated   officers   of   Public
Authorities.
7.
Hence this question needs specific explanation for the better understanding
of rights and duties and implementation of RTI with reference to this aspect.
a) The salary paid to the public servant by the public authority is sourced from
the tax paid by the people in general. The scale of salary is also fixed by
the   Public   Authority   based   on   certain   reasonable   fixation   in   an   open
exercise   by   Pay   Revision   Commissions   which   later   would   be   generally
approved by the Government, which is the representative of the people.
Thus the information belongs to public and they have a right to access to it
as per RTI Act. It has to be disclosed under Section 4 voluntarily by the
Public Authority and if a member of public seeks it, it cannot be denied.
b) The   information   about   salary   of   employee/officer   of   the   same   Public
Authority cannot be considered as ‘third party information’.  The employee
of the public authority is part of that public authority and hence he is not the
third party. Hence there is no need to obtain the consent of the particular
employee for disclosure of that information as provided under the RTI Act,
unless it falls under any exception. It may be recalled that even in case of
third   party   information,   if   the   Commission   considers   the   public   interest
demands, such information can be given in spite of refusal by the third
party. Public Authorities cannot reject such RTI applications about salary
under the pretext of third party information.
c) Based on above two reasons, every member of general public is entitled to
know   the   salary   of   the   employee   of   public   authority.   The   wife   of   that
particular   employee  is   also  entitled  to  know  it   as   a  member   of   general
public. Hence irrespective of her marital status, she has every right to know
the particulars of public servant’s salary.
d) As   per   the   provisions   of   various   personal   laws   applicable   to   people   of
different religions, the husband as an earning member of family has a legal
duty to maintain the wife and children.   It is an undisputed fact that the
dependents   such   as   wives   and   children   can   seek   a   direction   from   the
Courts   of   Justice.   Even   after   the   divorce,   the   family   law   ordains   that
Husband has a duty to provide for necessary maintenance of the wife and
children. Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code mandated that husband
has a general duty to maintain wife and children. The wife’s entitlement to
know the salary particulars of her husband gets further fortified by all the
above legal provisions.
e) Especially when the wife is seeking the salary particulars of the Husband,
from the public authority where he is working as public servant, it is the
duty   of   the   public   authority   to   render   required   assistance   by   providing
necessary information to her to secure justice. Denial of such information to
wife is thus, highly unreasonable, not justified and it will also amount to
breach of legal obligation.
f) The   maintenance   of   spouse   and   children   of   the   family   is   the   legal
responsibility of the earning member of the family. Depending upon the
situation a husband if dependent or incapable of earning might seek similar
information about the salary of the wife, if she is an employee of the public
authority.

g) In most of the cases, the denial of information about salary might amount to
denial of justice with mala fide intentions either to harass the spouse or
delay the process of justice or to avoid payment of money necessary for
maintenance   through   giving   wrong   information   or   denying   correct
information   to   the   court   of   law.   The   public   authority   or   its   PIO   or   AA,
cannot, inadvertently be a party to this mala fide denial of justice to the
spouse.
h) In addition to above, under Section 20, Right to Information Act 2005, such
a denial of information will be wrongful denial which could incur the penalty.
8.
In view of the above, Commission directs the PIO to supply the salary slip
as sought by the Appellant within one week of receipt of this order.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(Tarun Kumar)
Additional Registrar
Address of parties
1. The CPIO
   Home (General) Department
    Govt. of NCT of Delhi
       5th level, A Wing
         Delhi Secretariat
         I.P.Estate
        New Delhi
2. Ms.Jyothi Seherawat
   W/o Shri Sudhir Singh Sehrawat
      H.No.62, Madangir Village
       New Delhi 110 017

Print Page