Recently, the Gauhati High Court has upheld a former State Information Commissioner’s entitlement to post-retirement benefits equivalent to those of a Chief Secretary, dismissing the State’s appeal against an earlier Single Judge’s order. The case brought into focus whether a Commissioner who had not completed the standard qualifying service period could still claim pension and other retiral perks under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Brief facts of the Case:
The respondent had served as a State Information Commissioner from July 2015 to December 2019. Before this appointment, he was a member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service and had retired as Officer on Special Duty to the Principal Accountant General, Assam. Relying on Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in its unamended form, he contended that the office of State Information Commissioner was to be treated on par with that of a Chief Secretary in respect of salary, allowances and also post-retiral benefits. A Single Judge accepted this contention and directed that the respondent be paid pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity, telephone allowance and the services of a security assistant equivalent to those admissible to a Chief Secretary. The State challenged this order before the Division Bench.
Contentions of Petitioner:
The State argued that the respondent did not complete ten years of qualifying service, which is the minimum requirement under the service rules for entitlement to full pensionary benefits. It was submitted that the Single Judge had overlooked the judgment of the Division Bench in “Eken Riba v State of Arunachal Pradesh” which had laid down the need for compliance with service conditions in matters of pension. According to the State, granting benefits without the requisite qualifying service amounted to an error of law.
Contentions of Respondent:
The respondent contended that Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act created a legal fiction by placing the State Information Commissioner on the same footing as a Chief Secretary in respect of salary and post-retirement benefits. Since he was appointed prior to the 2019 amendment of the Act, the unamended provision continued to apply in his case. It was also argued that as a member of the Central Civil Services who already drew pension under the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, he could not be denied the additional benefits on the ground of lacking ten years of service under state rules.
Observations of the Court:
The court examined the scope of Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act and held that the provision, prior to its amendment, clearly intended that the State Information Commissioner be treated on par with the Chief Secretary in all matters relating to remuneration and retiral benefits. The Court emphasised that this legal fiction could not be lightly disregarded. While addressing the State’s argument on qualifying service, the Court observed “There would be no justifiable reasons to deny the additional post-retiral benefits, which is payable to a person of the rank of Chief Secretary, only on the ground that the respondent did not have 10 years of qualifying service.”
The Bench also distinguished the decision in Eken Riba, holding that the facts of that case were not comparable as it did not involve an appointee placed by statute on par with the Chief Secretary.
The decision of the Court:
The Court concluded that the Single Judge had not committed any legal error and that the respondent was entitled to the benefits as directed. It therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the order granting the respondent pension, gratuity, and facilities at par with those available to the Chief Secretary under the unamended Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act.
Case Title: State Of Assam And Ors. V. Pinuel Basumatary
Case No: WA/357/2024
Coram: Chief Justice Mr. Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury
Counsel for the petitioner: Adv.D.K. Sarmah
Counsel for the respondents: Adv. B.D. Das, Sr. Adv. Sarma
Picture Source :
