The Jharkhand High Court has determined that being entitled to specific benefits as the State Information Commissioner, akin to those received by the Chief Secretary, does not inherently grant the right to a pensionable service. The court highlighted that just because the Chief Secretary's position is pensionable, it doesn't mean the same applies to the State Information Commissioner.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, who served as State Information Commissioner from 2006 to 2011, faced challenges in obtaining retiral benefits. After his tenure ended, he sought these benefits but received no response. His initial writ petition was dismissed by the High Court in 2023. Consequently, he filed an intra-court appeal, contesting the decision that aligned his service terms with the Chief Secretary’s, a key factor affecting his pension rights and post-retirement benefits.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court was flawed due to several overlooked aspects, rendering it unsustainable in legal terms. The main points of contention were:
1. Despite Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 mandating the creation of a rule for pensionary benefits for the State Information Commissioner, the State Government has failed to formulate such a rule.
2. The petitioner, having fulfilled the terms of his appointment, was unjustly denied pension benefits, which is deemed illegal and arbitrary.
3. A previous writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on technical grounds, disregarding the precedent of a former Judge and Chief Information Commissioner receiving pension benefits after completing their tenure. This led to an alleged discrimination against the petitioner.
4. The mandate under Section 16(5) of the Act, 2005 requires the State Government to establish pension rules for the State Information Commissioner. The Single Judge's refusal to direct the State Government to frame such rules, citing it as a policy decision, was argued to be unjustified as the statute necessitates the creation of these rules.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent's counsel maintained that the Single Judge's judgment was correct, arguing the following points:
1. The Single Judge accurately interpreted the un-amended provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, effective until October 24, 2019. These provisions stated that pension benefits were applicable only to those who were in pensionable service before their appointment. The writ petitioner, not having been in such service prior to becoming the State Information Commissioner, was therefore ineligible for pension benefits under the un-amended Act.
2. Regarding the requirement to formulate rules under Section 16(5) of the Act, 2019, the counsel acknowledged this necessity. However, they argued that the petitioner's reliance on this amended provision, effective from October 24, 2019, was irrelevant as he had retired by then.
3. Even if rules were established, they wouldn't apply retrospectively to benefit the petitioner, who served from July 30, 2006, to July 31, 2011, under the regime of the un-amended rule.
4. The argument for issuing a command to create rules was countered as a matter of policy decision, which lies within the State's exclusive domain. Any newly formulated rules would only have a prospective, not retrospective, effect, and thus wouldn't benefit the petitioner.
5. At the time of the petitioner's appointment and completion of tenure, existing rules were already in place.
Observations of the Court:
In this case, the court clarified the differences in pension entitlement between the Chief Secretary and the petitioner, a State Information Commissioner. The Chief Secretary was in a pensionable position upon service entry, whereas the petitioner was not, particularly under the un-amended Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Upon reviewing the arguments and documents, the Court identified key issues, including the State's obligation to formulate pension rules, the petitioner's entitlement to pension benefits, and the High Court's authority to direct the State to formulate policy under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court noted that the terms of service for State Information Commissioners were contingent on being part of the pensionable service. An amendment in 2019 changed the authority over salary and service conditions to the Central Government and removed any reference to pension issuance for new appointees.
The bench discussed whether the State Government was required to formulate new rules and whether such rules would benefit the petitioner. It concluded that even if new rules were created, they wouldn't apply to the petitioner as he served under different provisions before the amendment.
The Hon’ble Court also addressed the issue of the High Court's jurisdiction in mandating the State to create new rules, concluding that such a directive would be unnecessary and an overreach, considering the existing rules at the time of the petitioner's appointment and tenure.
The decision of the Court:
In this case, considering all the observations made and the overall context of this case, the court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Shristidhar Mahato vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navneet Kumar
Case No.: L.P.A. No. 407 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Manoj Tandon
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Jai Prakash
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
