IMPORTANT POINT
Retired State Information Commissioners are entitled to medical facilities under the Central Government Health Scheme as per Rule 18 of the Rules 2019, without restrictions on post-retirement benefits.

JUDGMENT :

K.V. ARAVIND, J.

1. This appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is by respondent Nos.1 to 4 assailing the order of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 21507 of 2021, dated 21.06.2023.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kumar M.N. for the appellants, learned advocate Ms. Anitha for learned advocate Mr. Prasanna Kumar for respondent No. 1 and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent No. 2 in Writ Appeal No. 1556 of 2023 and learned advocate Ms. Anitha for learned advocate Mr. P. Prasanna Kumar for the complainant and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr. H. Shanthi Bhushan for accused Nos.1 to 4 in CCC No. 1154 of 2023.

3. Respondent No. 1-original writ petitioner was appointed as State Information Commissioner under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, under Notification dated 14.10.2014. Respondent No. 1 retired from service on 25.10.2019.

4. The Central Government issued Notification dated 24.10.2019 whereby, the Rules called “The Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission, State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners in the State Information Commission) Rules, 2019 [Rules 2019], were notified. The Rules 2019 provided for medical facilities to the Information Commissioners.

5. Respondent No. 1 made a request to issue Central Government Health Scheme Card [‘CGHS Card’]. The request was rejected as respondent No. 1 retired on 25.10.2019.

6. Respondent No. 1 preferred Writ Petition No. 21507 of 2021 challenging the endorsement dated 06.01.2020 whereby, the request to issue CGHS Card was allowed.

7. Learned Single Judge held that in terms of Rule 18 of Rules 2019, dated 24.10.2019, respondent No. 1 is entitled to the benefit of Rules 2019 as respondent No. 1 retired from service on 25.10.2019 i.e. after the Rules coming into force. This order of learned Single Judge is assailed in this appeal.

Submissions

8. Sri. M.N. Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that respondent No. 1 retired from service on 25.10.2019. The benefit of Rules 2019 on 24.10.2019 cannot be extended. Learned advocate submits that the Rules provided medical facilities only for the period when the Information Commissioners are in service. As respondent No. 1 retired from service, is not entitled for CGHS Card. Learned Single Judge committed an error in directing issuance of CGHS facilities.

9. Learned advocate for the appellants relies on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another vs. S.B. Vohara and others, (2004) 2 SCC 150, to contend that when respondent No. 1 has no right under CGHS, direction of learned Single Judge to extend the benefit by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not correct.

10. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that the Rules 2019 extending medical facilities to State Information Commissioner in the Central Government Health Scheme was in force prior to retirement of respondent No. 1. As the Rules were in force and respondent No. 1 was in service as on the date of the notification of Rules, respondent No. 1 is entitled to the benefit of Rules 2019 in respect of medical facilities under the Central Government Health Scheme.

11. Learned advocate further submits that the Central Government Health Scheme does not make any distinction for extending facilities while in service or post retirement. The CGHS prior to Rules 2019 has not made any distinction regarding applicability of the scheme to retired employees, it is not open to the appellants to contend that the benefits under Rules 2019 cannot be extended to respondent No. 1 after retirement.

12. Learned advocate relies on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha vs. Union of India, (20