Employee Is Entitled Under RTI To Get Service Particulars Of Colleagues For Pursuing Legal Disputes: Karnataka High Court

A Bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit observed that, “it hardly needs to be stated that for working out redressal for the grievances in service, an employee has to have full service particulars of other employees working under the same employer especially when dispute arises relating to confirmation, seniority, promotion or the like.”

The petitioner was a physics lecturer at the 5th respondent college. The commission had rejected the petitioner's RTI application under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Advocate Sharath Gowda G B appeared for Respondent 1 and Advocate Kiran Kumar appeared for Respondents 2-4.

The petitioner argued that they were entitled to access certain information related to service details of individuals mentioned in their RTI application. This information was crucial for the petitioner's claims in matters of service law, such as confirmation, seniority, promotion, etc. The petitioner believed that Section 8(1)(j) had been misinterpreted in the order.

After hearing arguments from both the petitioner and respondents, the Court was inclined to grant indulgence to the petitioner. The Court observed that the petitioner was not a stranger to the institution but a lecturer working there for years. The Court noted that the application of Section 8(1)(j) was not appropriate in this case.

The Court cited Lord Halsbury's observation that judgments must be interpreted in the context of the specific facts and that a case is an authority only for what it decides, not for all logical consequences.

The Court concluded that the petitioner's claim was valid, as the information sought was essential for their service-related matters. Denying this information would deny the petitioner the opportunity to benefit from a relevant government order dated June 2, 2011. The petition was successful.

“To avail benefit under the said Government Order, the information which the petitioner has sought for, becomes essential. Denying information virtually amounts denying opportunity to the petitioner to avail the benefit of said Government Order.”

The 5th respondent was directed by the Court to provide the requested service particulars and records to the petitioner within three weeks. If there was a delay, the 5th respondent was directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 per day to the petitioner. Additionally, the 5th respondent (Principal) was required to pay Rs.5,000 towards expenses.

Cause Title: AS Mallikarjunaswamy v. State Information Commissioner & Ors., [NC: 2023:KHC:29928]

Click here to read/download the Order