Times of India: Raipur: Monday,
2 September 2024.
The Chhattisgarh High Court
has held that a State Information Commissioner (member of Bar), despite
receiving salary and allowances equivalent to a Chief Secretary during his
tenure, is not eligible to receive superannuation pension/benefits alike those of
a Chief Secretary of the State. A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay K Agrawal
stated that the role of a State Information Commissioner, while important, does
not align with the traditional criteria for superannuation pension eligibility.
The tenure is typically short, being periodical, and the individual may not
have dedicated his entire professional life to public service.
"Therefore, holding that the State Information Commissioner petitioner is entitled to superannuation benefits on completion of his periodic appointment would not only be inconsistent with the objectives of the pension system but would also place an undue burden on the State exchequer. As such, salary and allowances of the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner (non-Govt) are limited to the period of their service. Post-retirement benefits, particularly superannuation pension, are not intended to be included within the scope of these service conditions. This distinction is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the pension system and ensuring that it serves its intended purpose of supporting those who have made significant contributions to public service and have crossed public service as per applicable rules," the Court ruled.
The petitioner, a former State Information Commissioner (SIC), filed a writ petition seeking pension after his tenure. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner failed to establish his right to pension under Section 16(5) of the unamended RTI Act. The court noted that the petitioner was not entitled to pension as he did not hold a pensionable position before his appointment as SIC and was directly appointed from the Bar (as an Advocate).
The petitioner argued that the term "other terms and conditions of service" in Section 16(5) of the RTI Act should include the right to a pension similar to that of a Chief Secretary. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that pension eligibility is determined by prior service in a pensionable role and the applicable rules.
The court further clarified that the position of SIC is not inherently pensionable, unlike the role of Chief Secretary, which comes with pension benefits under specific service rules. Additionally, the State Govt had not framed any rules under Section 27(2)(d) of the RTI Act regarding the pension or service conditions of SICs by the time the petitioner retired. Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioner had no legal right to a superannuation pension based on his service as SIC.
"Therefore, holding that the State Information Commissioner petitioner is entitled to superannuation benefits on completion of his periodic appointment would not only be inconsistent with the objectives of the pension system but would also place an undue burden on the State exchequer. As such, salary and allowances of the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner (non-Govt) are limited to the period of their service. Post-retirement benefits, particularly superannuation pension, are not intended to be included within the scope of these service conditions. This distinction is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the pension system and ensuring that it serves its intended purpose of supporting those who have made significant contributions to public service and have crossed public service as per applicable rules," the Court ruled.
The petitioner, a former State Information Commissioner (SIC), filed a writ petition seeking pension after his tenure. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner failed to establish his right to pension under Section 16(5) of the unamended RTI Act. The court noted that the petitioner was not entitled to pension as he did not hold a pensionable position before his appointment as SIC and was directly appointed from the Bar (as an Advocate).
The petitioner argued that the term "other terms and conditions of service" in Section 16(5) of the RTI Act should include the right to a pension similar to that of a Chief Secretary. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that pension eligibility is determined by prior service in a pensionable role and the applicable rules.
The court further clarified that the position of SIC is not inherently pensionable, unlike the role of Chief Secretary, which comes with pension benefits under specific service rules. Additionally, the State Govt had not framed any rules under Section 27(2)(d) of the RTI Act regarding the pension or service conditions of SICs by the time the petitioner retired. Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioner had no legal right to a superannuation pension based on his service as SIC.
.JPG)
.JPG)
