Back
N. NAGARESH
S. Somanathan Pillai – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
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 po
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
