The Delhi High Court Refuses RTI Disclosure Of Employee’s LTC, CGHS Records, holding that the use of public funds for reimbursement does not by itself make an employee’s personal information disclosable.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking the Leave Travel Concession (LTC) and Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) reimbursement records of an employee of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), upholding the refusal of the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 [Sachin Kumar Daksh v. Director-Admin and Finance and Another].
Justice Amit Mahajan decided the petition on October 7, 2026. The petitioner, who appeared in person through video conferencing, challenged an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) dated May 16, 2025.
The RTI request
By an RTI application dated June 24, 2024, the petitioner sought details of the employee’s LTC claims and travel tickets for dependents, CGHS medical facilities and bills for dependents, family declaration forms, and other LTC journeys with dependents. The Central Public Information Officer refused the request on July 22, 2024 under Section 8(1)(j). The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal on August 21, 2024, and the CIC dismissed the second appeal, holding that the material was third-party personal information and that no larger public interest had been shown.
The petitioner argued that public funds were involved and that the information was needed for vigilance complaints. The respondents, represented by Varun Mishra, Senior Panel Counsel, with Shreeya Sud, relied on Section 8(1)(j) and stated that the petitioner is married to the employee’s sister and that matrimonial disputes and divorce proceedings are pending between the parties, so that the request was not bona fide. These are the respondents’ contentions.
What the Court said
The Court began by noting that “the right to information is not an unqualified right”. It held that the petitioner sought far more than an aggregate figure of expenditure, since the request concerned identifiable family members, their travel and their medical treatment, and that such information by its nature concerns the private affairs of the employee and of third parties. On public funds, it held that the mere statement that the benefits may have involved expenditure from public funds does not, by itself, take the information out of Section 8(1)(j), and that no overriding public interest had been shown.
On the vigilance complaints, the Court held that they cannot, by themselves, create an independent right to access information which is otherwise exempted or protected. It also cautioned against misuse of the statute:
“the RTI mechanism cannot be permitted to become a means to settle personal scores”
The result
The writ petition was dismissed, the denial of the information was upheld, and pending applications were disposed of.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling restates that personal particulars of a government servant and family members do not become public records merely because a reimbursement scheme is funded from the public exchequer. It also confirms that a requester must show a larger public interest, and that a pending vigilance complaint or a family dispute does not supply one.
Case Title: Sachin Kumar Daksh v. Director-Admin and Finance and Another [W.P.(C) 9118/2025]
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
Date of Judgment: October 7, 2026
Appearances: Petitioner in person through video conferencing; Varun Mishra, SPC, with Shreeya Sud for the Union of India