High Court of Gujarat

KHERUNBEN ISHABHAI DAYMAversusGUJARAT INFORMATION COMMISSION

Disposal: 59-RULE ISSUED & RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED@FH
Bench: HEMANT M PRACHCHHAK

Holding

The High Court upheld the information authority’s order, finding no error and dismissing the petition.

Summary

The petitioner, a widow, sought service records and post‑death benefit details of her deceased husband under the Right to Information Act, after the information authority refused citing Section 8(1)(i). The authority directed her to submit documents, which she did, but the authority still denied the information and the State Information Commission upheld the denial. The petitioner challenged the order in the High Court, arguing that the refusal was illegal and that the information was necessary to claim her legal rights as a widow. The Court examined the authority’s decision, noting that the service book already identified the legal heirs and that the benefits had been granted accordingly. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission, the Court held that the petitioner’s claim was similar and the order was proper. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and confirmed the information authority’s order.

Issues considered

The information authority’s reliance on Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act to refuse disclosure of the deceased employee’s service records.
Whether the petitioner, as a widow, is entitled to obtain the information to claim post‑death benefits.
Whether the High Court should set aside the State Information Commission’s order in light of the Supreme Court precedent.

Legislation cited

Right to Information Act, 2005s. 8(1)(i)

Subjects

Right to Information ActSection 8(1)(i)post‑death benefitsservice recordswidow's rightsinformation disclosureSupreme Court precedent

Judgment

   C/SCA/4204/2024                              JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4204 of 2024


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

==========================================================

          Approved for Reporting               Yes          No
                                                            No
==========================================================
                    KHERUNBEN ISHABHAI DAYMA
                              Versus
               GUJARAT INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANKUR Y OZA(2821) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SHIVANG M SHAH(5916) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                           Date : 02/04/2026

                          ORAL JUDGMENT


1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Shivang M. Shah,
learned counsel waives service of rule on behalf of
respondent no.2. With the consent of the learned counsels
appearing for both the sides, the petition is taken up for
final hearing today.

2. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles
12, 14, 19, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
r/w the provisions of Right to Information Act challenging

                               Page 1 of 6
  C/SCA/4204/2024                        JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




the impugned order dated 31.7.2023 passed by the State
Information Commissioner in Appeal No.5803 of 2022
with below mentioned relief/s:-
     “5(a) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated
     31.07.2023 passed in Appeal no. A-5803 of 2022 by the
     State Information Commissioner, Gujarat Information
     Commission, Gandhinagar; and consequently
     (b) direct the respondent No.3 to furnish to the
     petitioner the information sought for by the petitioner
     regarding the service record of her deceased husband
     vide application dated 8.4.2021 under the Right to
     Information Act.
     (c) to direct to the respondent no.3 to furnish to the
     petitioner the service record of her deceased husband
     pending hearing and final disposal of this petition as per
     her application dated 8.4.2021
     (d) to pass any appropriate order or direction that may
     be deemed just and proper.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage of the
petitioner was solemnized with Ishabhai Ishubhai Dayma
on 26.10.2017 at Ahmedabad. The said marriage was
registered on 7.11.2017 under the Gujarat Registration of
Marriage Act, 2006. After the marriage, the petitioner
was residing together with Ishabhai Ishubhai Dayma and
the name and address of the husband of the petitioner
have been inserted in the electoral photo identity card
and aadhar card of the petitioner.

3.1 Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner died on
11.11.2020. At the time of his death, the husband of the
petitioner was working as Senior Clerk in the office of
Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry. After death of her



                           Page 2 of 6
  C/SCA/4204/2024                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




husband, petitioner has claimed right on the benefits, the
legal    heirs      of   the     deceased        employee       entitled          to.
However, the son of the deceased born out of first
marriage has disputed the claim of the petitioner and
sought withdrawal of all the amount of pension gratuity,
provident fund etc. Therefore, the petitioner made
application to the concerned respondent authority under
RTI Act seeking information regarding service book,
pension, provident fund, Gratuity, claim papers, details of
disbursement of pension, gratuity, insurance of her
husband.

3.2 The respondent authority refused to give information
to the petitioner vide letter dated 6.5.2021 by quoting
Section 8(1)(i) of Chapter 2 of RTI. Being aggrieved the
petitioner filed First Appeal before the respondent no.2.
The said authority passed an order dated 28.6.2021 and
directed the petitioner to first furnish relevant documents
and in compliance thereto the petitioner furnished
relevant document before the concerned respondent
authority and vide letter dated 6.4.2022, the said
authority       intimated        the    petitioner      that      documents
furnished by the petitioner are not in accordance with the
order dated 28.6.2021 and therefore, the information
sought for by the petitioner has not provided. Thereafter,
the     petitioner       filed    Second         Appeal      before        State
Information Commission under RTI Act. The said Second


                                   Page 3 of 6
     C/SCA/4204/2024                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




Appeal came to be rejected by the said authority.

3.3 In view of the above facts, the petitioner has
preferred          present    petition      and        prayed        for     above
mentioned relief/s.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order is illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and is not
in consonance with the settled legal principle and
therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
He      has       further    submitted          that    by     providing         the
information sought for by the petitioner the respondents
are not going to disburse any death benefits of the
deceased employee. He has submitted that by not
providing the information the respondent are depriving
the petitioner from making claim as widow and legal heirs
of the deceased employee. He has submitted that Section
8(1)(i) of Chapter 2 of the RTI Act is not applicable to
present         case   and     therefore,         the     decision         of    the
respondent authority is bad in law and therefore, he
prays to quash the impugned order passed by the
respondent authority.

6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent
has supported the order passed by the respondent


                                  Page 4 of 6
     C/SCA/4204/2024                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




authority and submitted that the impugned order passed
by the respondent authority is just and proper and this
Court may not interfere with the said order. He has
submitted that present petition may not be entertained
and the same may be dismissed.

7. I have perused the relevant material and documents
available on record. I have also gone through the
impugned order passed by the respondent authority.

8. It appears from the record that the petitioner has
prayed that she is the widow of deceased Ishabhai
Ishubhai Dayma and that she was not given any post-
retiral benefits; however, the authority has observed that,
at the time of entering service, the nominee was
mentioned in the service book, and after considering the
record therein, they have granted the post-death benefits
to the legal heirs of the deceased Ishabhai; therefore,
after considering all the relevant facts mentioned in the
impugned               order,   and    since         the   authority       has      not
committed any error while passing the impugned order,
in    my       opinion,         the   respondent           authority       has      not
committed any error in passing the impugned order.

9. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Girish Ramchandra
Deshpande vs. Cen. Information Commr. and Ors.
dated 3.10.2012 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil)


                                       Page 5 of 6
     C/SCA/4204/2024                                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




No. 27734 of 2012 wherein, in similar set of facts the
Hon’ble Apex Court has dismissed the petition filed by the
petitioner under RTI Act. The said principle is applicable
in present case as well. Hence, present petition is
required to be dismissed.

10. In view of the above facts and considering the
observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of
Girish (supra), I am of the opinion that the impugned
order passed by the respondent authority is just and
proper and the authority has not committed any error in
passing the impugned order. Hence, present petition is
hereby dismissed. The impugned order passed by the
respondent                  authority               is      hereby              confirmed.                  Rule          is
discharged. No order as to costs.


                                                                                            Sd/-
                                                                        (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: SURESHKUMAR MOTIBHAI SOLANKI(HC00208), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/04/2026 11:22:02




                                                       Page 6 of 6

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Right to Information Act"Sign in to search