Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Pinuel Basumatary on 21 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010176562024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/357/2024
STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND
SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.
2: THE ASSAM INFORMATION COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
PANJABARI, GUWAHATI- 781037
3: THE PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPARTMENT
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DISPUR, ASSAM, GUWAHATI- 781006.
VERSUS
PINUEL BASUMATARY
SONE OF LATE KRISTODAS BASUMATARY,
RESIDENT OF NO.1, SAPKHAITI,
UDALGURI, BTR, ASSAM, PIN-784509
For the appellants : Mr. D.K. Sarmah,
Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam
For the respondent : Mr. B.D. Das, Sr. Advocate
Mr. H.K. Sarma, Advocate
Page No.# 2/5
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
21-08-2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.)
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated
28.06.2024, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C)
5578/2023, wherein it has been held that the respondent herein, who retired as
State Information Commissioner, would be entitled to the benefits and
allowances under Section 16 (5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
(hereinafter to be referred as "2005 Act") w.e.f. 01.01.2020. The impugned
judgment further declares that he would be entitled to other additional benefits,
namely, additional pension, additional DCRG along with Telephone and Security
Assistant, which ought to be made available to the respondent.
3. The State of Assam has challenged this decision on several counts but
primarily on the ground that the judgment does not take into account a decision
of a Division Bench of this Court and that the respondent did not have the
qualifying 10 years of service to be entitled for additional pension, additional
DCRG along with Telephone and Security Assistant, which are paid to the Chief
Secretary of a State.
4. The respondent was appointed as State Information Commissioner, who
served from 31.07.2015 till 31.12.2019. Prior to his engagement as State
Page No.# 3/5
Information Commissioner, he was a member of the Indian Audit Service and
had demitted his office as an OSD in the office of the Principal Accountant
General, A&E, Assam.
Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 prior to its amendment
in 2019, is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference as also for the sake of
completeness:
"16. Term of office and conditions of service.
(1).................
(2).................
(3).................
(4).................
(5) The salaries and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of
service of the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information
Commissioners shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government:
Provided that the salaries, allowances and other conditions of service of
the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information
Commissioner shall not be varied to their disadvantage after their appointment:
Provided further that the State Chief Information Commissioner and the
State Information Commissioner appointed before the commencement of the
Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 shall continue to be governed by
the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder as if the Right to
Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 had not come into force."
5. Since the respondent was appointed on 31.07.2015, the un-amended
Section 16(5) of the 2005 Act would be applicable in his case. A bare reading of
Section 16(5) of the 2005 Act would indicate that the salaries and allowances of
the State Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of the Chief
Secretary to the State Government.
6. It appears from the records that the respondent had earlier approached
this court by way of WP(C) 4497/2021, which was disposed off with a direction
to the State respondents to pass a reasoned order in case of the respondent
Page No.# 4/5
herein, in view of the legal fiction created under Section 16(5) of the 2005 Act
and not to insist for extending such benefits only to a person who has served as
Chief Secretary or in the rank equivalent to Chief Secretary. By virtue of Section
16(5) of the 2005 Act, a deeming fiction is created to the advantage of the
State Information Commissioner, who would be paid similar salary and post-
retiral benefits as that of Chief Secretary.
7. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the judgment rendered by a
Division Bench of this Court in Eken Riba and othes vs. State of Arunachal
Pradesh and others, reported in 2022 (1) GLT 474 and has rightly observed
that the afore-noted judgment does not specify whether the petitioner therein
was similarly situated like that of the respondent herein.
8. The respondent herein undoubtedly is a member of Union Civil Service,
who superannuated as an OSD from the office of the Principal Accountant
General, A&E, Assam. Since he is a member of Union Civil Service, he would be
otherwise governed by the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972. Under
Rule 49 of the 1972 Rules, there is a clear provision that in the case of a
Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules, he
would be entitled to pension as provided under the said Rule.
9. The learned Single Judge, therefore, concluded that since there is no
dispute that the respondent is drawing pension after having superannuated
from service under the Union Civil Service, there would be no requirement of
further qualifying service of 10 years, which would be necessary for making the
respondent eligible for the benefits of salaries and allowances equivalent to that
of the Chief Secretary of the State Government.
Page No.# 5/5
10. In view of the provisions contained in Section 16(5) of the 2005 Act,
referred to above, as also the fact that the respondent has been receiving
pension after demitting his office as a member of Indian Audit Service, 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 judgment
impugned espouses the correct law on the issue.
11. The judgment impugned, therefore, requires no interference.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
