PIO/FAA Framework for Service-Record RTIs

Decide service-record requests item-wise, not as one bundle. In Girish Deshpande v CIC (2013) 1 SCC 212 the Supreme Court held that a public servant's service details — pay, appraisal records, disciplinary matters — are personal information within §8(1)(j): the performance of an employee is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer, and disclosure is possible only where the larger public interest justifies it. Applying that test:

1. Pay scale, allowances, leave — usually disclosed with reasons: they arise from public duty and are paid from public funds.
2. APAR / evaluative material — ordinarily exempt under §8(1)(j); disclose only if the applicant demonstrates larger public interest, and record that finding.
3. Pending inquiries — exempt under §8(1)(h) until conclusion; post-conclusion, final orders are case-specific.
4. Apply §10 severability — mixed records: disclose what survives the test, sever the personal portions.
5. Issue a speaking order — record the §8(1)(j) larger-public-interest reasoning for everything you disclose and everything you refuse.

To: [Applicant Name]

Subject: Reply to RTI [____] — Service records request

Sir/Madam,

Your application sought [details] of [Officer Name / Designation]. Under the framework laid down by the Supreme Court in Girish Deshpande v CIC (2013) 1 SCC 212, service-record details of a public servant are personal information within §8(1)(j), and can be disclosed only where the larger public interest justifies it. Applying that test item-wise, I respond as follows:

1. PAY SCALE + ALLOWANCES: Disclosed.
   [Specific data per format] — drawn from public funds; disclosure reasoned on public-duty grounds.

2. LEAVE STATUS: Disclosed.
   [Specific data] — relates to public duty.

3. APAR (ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL): Exempt under §8(1)(j). The performance of an officer is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer (Girish Deshpande); the substantive grading and the reviewing-officer narrative are personal information. Should the applicant demonstrate larger public interest, I will reconsider and apply severance under §10.

4. DISCIPLINARY RECORDS: The status of pending inquiries is exempt under §8(1)(h) until conclusion. Final orders after conclusion are examined case-by-case under §8(1)(j).

5. AADHAAR / PERSONAL ADDRESS / FAMILY DETAILS: Exempt under §8(1)(j) — not connected to public duty.

Application of severability under §10: items 1 and 2 disclosed; item 3 exempt absent demonstrated larger public interest; items 4 and 5 exempt with the reasoning above.

Yours faithfully,
[Name, Designation, PIO]

Usually disclosed — pay drawn from public funds; record the public-duty reasoning.

Exempt under §8(1)(j) — APAR grading is personal information (Girish Deshpande); disclose only if larger public interest is shown, then sever under §10.

Usually disclosed — leave records relate to public duty; record reasons.

Exempt under §8(1)(h) until inquiry concludes.

Case-by-case after conclusion — apply the §8(1)(j) larger-public-interest test and record reasons.

Exempt under §8(1)(j) — not work record.

• Girish Deshpande v CIC (2013) 1 SCC 212 — A public servant's service details, including appraisal records, are personal information under §8(1)(j); disclosure only where larger public interest justifies it.
• R.K. Jain v UoI (SC, 16 April 2013) — Note sheets and file correspondence on a public servant's ACR are equally personal information under §8(1)(j); not disclosable absent larger public interest (applies Deshpande).

Related on this site: the citizen-side walkthrough at RTI for an ACR/APAR copy and the RTI Act §8 exemptions.

• Blanket refusal of the entire request as 'personal' — decide item-wise under §8(1)(j); pay and leave usually survive the test.
• Disclosing APAR grading by default — Girish Deshpande holds it is personal information; refuse unless larger public interest is shown.
• Disclosing officer's Aadhaar / phone — violates §8(1)(j) regardless.
• Pre-decision disciplinary disclosure — violates §8(1)(h) inquiry protection.
• Generic refusal without reasoning — violates §7(8) speaking order standard.
• Failing to apply §10 severability for mixed records.

• Maintain a “service record reply template” — saves time.
• For complex APAR queries, consult HR + DoPT guidelines.
• For disciplinary queries, check inquiry status before any disclosure.
• Use anonymization for aggregate (e.g., “all Class A officers in this PA”) queries.
• Train HR division on the Girish Deshpande §8(1)(j) larger-public-interest test — it accelerates future replies.
• The RTI Playbook — the house handbook for drafting, filing and escalating an RTI.

Ordinarily, yes. APAR grading is personal information under §8(1)(j) (Girish Deshpande) — refuse with reasons unless the applicant demonstrates larger public interest. Once that interest is shown, apply §10 severance and disclose only what it actually requires.

Generally exempt under §8(1)(j) unless specific public-interest in fitness for office.

Public posts: yes. Private: exempt under §8(1)(j).

Apply standard test; spousal status doesn't override §8(1)(j).

Use §6(3) transfer to current parent department.

RTI Act §6(3), §7(8), §8(1)(h), §8(1)(j) and §10; Girish Deshpande v CIC (2013) 1 SCC 212; R.K. Jain v UoI (SC, 16 April 2013); CCS / AIS Conduct Rules; CIC decisions on service records.