IMPORTANT POINT
Pension eligibility under the RTI Act requires prior pensionable service; State Information Commissioners are not entitled to superannuation pension as per the Act's provisions.

ORDER :

(Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.)

Question involved: -

1. The short question involved in this writ petition is, whether the petitioner, who was the State Information Commissioner appointed from amongst the members of Bar having completed the tenure of his periodic appointment on the post of State Information Commissioner, is entitled for superannuation pension under Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the RTI Act’) (unamended prior to 24-10-2019) equivalent to that of Chief Secretary of the State? This inquiry necessitates a deep understanding of the legal and constitutional principles governing pensions for State officials, particularly in light of the service conditions, responsibilities and objectives underlying the provision of pensions.

Relevant facts in brief: -

2. The aforesaid question of law arises in the following factual backdrop: -

2.1) The petitioner being a member of Bar was appointed by the State Government as State Information Commissioner (SIC), Chhattisgarh vide notification dated 6-9-2009 in exercise of the power under Section 15(3) of the RTI Act. He took oath on 22-9-2008 as SIC for a period of five years and completed his tenure on 22-9-2013 as State Information Commissioner and demitted the office accordingly. He was paid salary & allowances for the aforesaid period. On 8-7-2015, the petitioner filed this instant writ petition seeking a direction to the State / respondent No.1 to provide pre and post retiral benefits and pension to him as per Section 16 of the RTI Act and a further direction to the State / respondent No.1 to make compliance of the provisions of the RTI Act laying down the terms and conditions of service of State Information Commissioners and to grant the said benefit to the petitioner.

2.2) It is the case of the petitioner that Section 16(5) of the RTI Act clearly mandates and makes the petitioner entitled for pension, as the petitioner was allowed all other benefits i.e. salary & allowances in terms of Section 16 of the RTI Act except pension and retiral benefits which he is entitled for and respondents No.1 & 2 / State in their reply have not disputed and denied the entitlement of the petitioner to get pension and the State Government has also framed draft rules, but not yet implemented, and therefore he is entitled for pension and thus seeks appropriate writ of mandamus in this regard.

3. The State of Chhattisgarh / respondents No.1 & 2 has filed return stating inter alia that the petitioner was appointed as State Information Commissioner under Section 15(3) of the RTI Act and by virtue of Section 16(5) of the RTI Act (unamended), he was entitled for salary & allowances which he was paid during his tenure of five years. It was further pleaded that the second proviso to Section 16(5) (unamended) clearly stipulates that for entitlement of pension, the person must be in receipt of pension or must have a pensionable service at the time of appointment and order dated 6-9-2008 (Annexure P-1) by which the petitioner was appointed as State Information Commissioner does not specify that the petitioner was in receipt of pension or his previous service was pensionable service. It was also pleaded that the RTI Act does not provide for pension and retiral benefits to the petitioner. The second proviso to Section 16(5) of the RTI Act (unamended) does not include grant of pension in absence of a previous pensionable service held by the petitioner and as such, he is not entitled for pension, as the Government has not framed any rules in respect of the salaries and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of the officers and other employees under sub-section (6) of Section 13 and sub-section (6) of Section 16 of the RTI Act as stipulated under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the petitioner’s writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner: -

4. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel appear