Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J.
S. Somanathan Pillai – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 36076 of 2022
Decided On : 11-04-2023
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 16(5), 16 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 21 and 300 A - All India Services (Medical Facilities) Scheme, 2020 - Rule 2(e) - Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 - Medical reimbursement benefits - Petitioners, who were appointed as State Information Commissioners of Kerala State Information Commission, are aggrieved by denial of medical reimbursement benefits on par with such benefits as available to Chief Secretary of State - whether the petitioners, being State Information Commissioners, are entitled to the benefit of All India Services (Medical Facilities) Scheme, 2020, which is available to the Chief Secretary of the Kerala Government - Law is applicable to all authorities and bodies under constitution or any other law and all authorities under Central Government and State Government.
Findings of the Court:
Only a member of All India Services can be appointed as a Chief Secretary to the State Government and hence all Chief Secretaries are entitled to the benefit of Scheme, 2020 and consequently the petitioners are also entitled to benefit - Circular issued by Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training provides the principles regarding the promotion of members of Indian Administrate Service. Clause VI of the principles of guidelines provide that the zone of consideration for promotion of members of the Indian Administrative service would consist of all members of the service who have completed 30 years of service - It is evident that only members of All India Services can be appointed as Chief Secretary to the Government.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
N. NAGARESH, J.
1. The petitioners, who were appointed as State Information Commissioners of the Kerala State Information Commission, are aggrieved by the denial of the medical reimbursement benefits on par with such benefits as available to the Chief Secretary of the State.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that while Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘the RTI Act’ for short) provides that the salaries and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of the State Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of the Chief Secretary to the State Government, the petitioners have been denied the benefit of the All India Services (Medical Facilities) Scheme, 2020, applicable to the Chief Secretaries on the ground that a Chief Secretary becomes eligible for the All India Services (Medical Facilities) Scheme, 2020, only by reason of him being a member of the All India Service. The argument of the respondents is that since the Commissioners under the RTI Act are not members of the All India Services, the All India Services (Medical Facilities) Scheme, 2020 will not ipso facto apply to the petitioners.
3. Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the statutory provisions are clear. Under Section 16(5) of the RTI Act, it is mandated that the salaries, allowances and other conditions of service of the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall not be varied to their disadvantage after their appointments. Section 16 also mandates that the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners 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.
4. Earlier, when the petitioners were denied the benefit of Ext.P5 Scheme, the petitioners approached this Court filing W.P. (C) No. 25550/2021. This Court considered the issue and disposed of the writ petition setting aside the impugned Ext.P8 order therein and directing the respondents to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. The respondents, purportedly in implementation of Ext.P11 judgment, has passed Ext.P12 order. In Ext.P12 order, the Government has observed that it is clear that the Chief Secretary becomes eligible to avail the All India Services (Medical Facilities) Scheme, 2020, only by virtue of being a member of All India Services as defined under the relevant Rules and Scheme and not because of being the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala.
5. If a non-All India Service Officer happens to be posted as a Chief Secretary, then such an officer will not be eligible to avail of the benefits of the All India Services (Medical Facilities) Scheme, 2020. On these premises, the request of the petitioners to extend them the benefit of the All India Services (Medical Facilities) Scheme, 2020 stands rejected.
6. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the rejection of the claim of the petitioners to be included in the All India Services (Medical Facilities) Scheme, 2020 is illegal and unconstitutional. While denying the petitioners equal treatment with that of the Chief Secretary of the State, the respondents have violated Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. They have also flouted the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 21 and 300 A.
7. The counsel for the petitioners urged that Ext.P13 Note Files reveal that the benefit claimed by the petitioners have been denied on two grounds. Both the grounds are unsustainable, contended the counsel for the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners relied on Ext.P14 Circular No. 20011/4/92-AIS-2 dated 28.03.2000 of the Ministry of Personnel, P.G and Pensions of the Government of India and argued that only a person who is a member of All India Service can be appointed as Chief Secretary
The court established that 'other terms and conditions of service' includes pensionary benefits, affirming the petitioner's entitlement under the relevant statutes.
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.
The judgment establishes the principle of 'occupied field' in the context of pension entitlement, emphasizing that existing rules govern entitlement and that the State Government's policy decisions a....
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 benefit....
The court emphasized that the grant of pensionary benefits and the framing of rules for post-retiral benefits are matters of policy and legislative acts, and the existence of similar rules in other s....
The court emphasized the purpose of the Right to Information Act in providing access to information and held that the appointment of PIOs is necessary to ensure compliance with the Act.
Disclosure of personal information under RTI requires explicit consent from the candidate, balancing public interest and privacy provisions.
The imposition of penalty by the State Information Commissioner was held invalid due to lack of statutory authority and necessary procedural safeguards under the Right to Information Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
