Ujjal Bhuyan, J.—Heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram for the respondents. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of State Chief Information Commissioner, Mizoram (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 as being ultra vires to the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 as well as letter dated 11.3.2013 of the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Finance Department (APF Branch) addressed to the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts & Treasuries, Aizawl, Mizoram informing the latter that petitioner is not entitled to pension for his service as State Chief Information Commissioner. Petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to grant him pension and special duty allowance for rendering service as State Chief Information Commissioner, Mizoram and for issuance of regular pay slip.

2. Petitioner is a retired IAS officer. He retired from service w.e.f. 28.02.2005.

3. Following enactment of Right to Information Act, 2005, State of Mizoram constituted Mizoram State Information Commission on 29.06.2006. By notification dated 3.07.2006, petitioner was appointed by the Governor of Mizoram as the State Chief Information Commissioner, Mizoram. Terms and conditions of service mentioned in the appointment order indicated that conditions of service would be governed by the terms and conditions laid down in Section 16 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). Petitioner was administered oath and joined office as State Chief Information Commissioner on 5.07.2006. After serving for about 4 years, petitioner laid down office of State Chief Information Commissioner w.e.f. 1.2.2010, having attained the age of 65 years.

4. Grievance of the petitioner is that though he is entitled to special duty allowance (SDA) during his service as State Chief Information Commissioner as well as pension for rendering service as such, he has been denied both. His further grievance is that he was only issued provisional pay slip instead of regular pay slip, which affected his pay and pension.

5. From a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and on considering the submissions made during the course of hearing, it appears that the core grievance of the petitioner is non-payment of SDA and pension for rendering service as State Chief Information Commissioner. As such, the above two grievances are being discussed and deliberated upon under separate heads.

SDA

6. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court along with the State Information Commissioner and Secretary, Mizoram State Information Commission by filing W.P.(C) No. 3/2010 seeking a direction to the respondents to grant SDA. This Court noticed that the petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 3/2010 had submitted a representation before the Chief Controller of Accounts on 10.09.2009 seeking the aforesaid relief. In view of above, W.P.(C) No. 3/2010 was disposed of vide order dated 25.1.2010 directing the Chief Controller of Accounts to examine the sustainability of the claim of the petitioners within a period of 2 (two) months.

7. According to the petitioner, his counterpart in Meghalaya was granted SDA. Therefore, there could be no justification to deny such allowance to the petitioner. Though this Court had directed the Chief Controller of Accounts to examine the sustainability of the claim, no decision has been taken thereon. Petitioner has relied upon office memorandum dated 29.08.2008 of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of India providing SDA to civilian employees of the Central Government serving in the North Eastern region and in Ladakh. It provided that SDA allowed to the Central Government employees including All India Service Officers posted in North Eastern region would be granted to such employees posted at Ladakh w.e.f. 1.9.2008. Petitioner has also pointed out that Chief Secretary to the Government o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document