'State Information Commissioner Benefits Not Automatically Pensionable, SIC's Post Distingusiahable From Chief Secy's Role': Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the entitlement of the State Information Commissioner to certain benefits, based on the terms and conditions granted by the Chief Secretary, does not automatically confer pensionable service status. The court emphasized that the mere pensionable nature of the Chief Secretary's post does not imply similar entitlement for the incumbent of the State Information Commissioner role.A division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar observed, “Further argument has been advanced that since the post of State Information Commissioner is held to be at par with the post of Chief Secretary of the State as such similar benefit including pension is to be extended to the holder of the post of State Information Commissioner but according to our considered view based upon the provision of Section 27 read with un-amended provision of Section 16(5) it is only confined to the salary and allowances.”“The authority by taking into consideration the fact that the holder of the post of State Information Commissioner has been given the benefit as per the terms and conditions of the Chief Secretary but that does not mean that merely because the post of Chief Secretary is pensionable hence the incumbent will be entitled for the pensionable service… ”The court clarified that the Chief Secretary, upon entering service, was already in a pensionable position. In contrast, the petitioner, upon entering service, did not enjoy a pensionable status, especially considering the existence of a rule under the un-amended Section 16(5) governing pension matters. Consequently, the court concluded that the petitioner cannot claim equivalence with the Chief Secretary regarding the entitlement to pensionary benefits.The above ruling came in an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, directed against the judgement passed by the Single Judge in a Writ Petition, whereby and whereunder the writ petition was dismissed declining to interfere with impugned order by which the representation submitted by the petitioner, in pursuance to order passed in another writ petitioner was rejected.The petitioner, Shristidhar Mahato, assumed the role of State Information Commissioner alongside five others on July 30, 2006. Subsequently, after serving a five-year term, the petitioner concluded their tenure on July 31, 2011.Post the termination of office on July 31, 2011, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking retiral benefits. However, receiving no response, the petitioner filed a writ petition before thie High Court. The matter was disposed of on March 16, 2016, with an order directing the concerned respondent to make an informed decision regarding the petitioner's post-retiral and other terminal benefits within twelve weeks.In compliance with the court's directive, the petitioner submitted a comprehensive representation to the respondents-authorities. However, the respondents-authorities did not address the petitioner's representation, prompting the petitioner to file a contempt case.During the pendency of the contempt petition, the petitioner's representation was eventually addressed through an order dated August 24, 2016. The order rejected the petitioner's claim, citing that the service conditions of the State Information Commissioner were deemed equivalent to those of the Chief Secretary of the State. Furthermore, it mentioned that with the introduction of the new Pension Scheme from January 1, 2004, there was no provision for pension for the said position.Dissatisfied with the decision, the petitioner once again approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition, which was dismissed on June 15, 2023. Consequently, the appellant-writ petitioner filed the current intra-court appeal in response to the dismissal.After hearing the counsels for both the parties, perusing the documents available on record and also taking into account the findings recorded by the Single Judge, the Court framed the following issues to be answered:I. Whether the State is duty bound to formulate the rule governing the issue of pension as per the mandate of Section 16(5) of the Act, 2005?II. Whether the writ petitioner can be deprived from the benefit of pension merely because he was not appointed in any pensionable service the day when he was appointed as State Information Commissioner?III. Whether the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge to the effect that framing out of rule is exclusive domain of the State and there cannot be any direction by the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing command upon the State to frame out a policy decision can be said to be a correct finding?Since all the issues were inter-linked therefore the same the Court took them up together to be answered.In its interpretation of Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Court underscored that the conditions governing the terms and conditions of service for both...

'State Information Commissioner Benefits Not Automatically Pensionable, SIC's Post Distingusiahable From Chief Secy's Role': Jharkhand HC

Bhavya Singh

Tags