IMPORTANT POINT
The petitioner, a retired State Chief Information Commissioner, is entitled to retirement benefits equivalent to those of Election Commissioners as per the unamended provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, who retired as the State Chief Information Commissioner, has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Exts.P14 and P17 communications of the 2^nd respondent, by which he is denied the post-retirement benefits claimed by him.

2. The petitioner, a member of Indian Police Service, retired on 22.11.2015. He was appointed as the State Chief Information Commissioner as evidenced by Ext.P1 notification dated 28.04.2016. He demitted the office on 22.11.2020 on attaining the age of 65 years. In connection with his retirement, the 2^nd respondent was requested to determine the post-retirement benefits through Ext.P13 communication of the Secretary to the State Information Commission, Kerala. By Ext.P14, the 2^nd respondent informed that the Government is not in a position to consider “the Chief Information Commissioners at par with retired Supreme Court Judges and the retired Election Commissioners”. It is further found that such benefits could not be extended to one class of officers, that the Central Government admitted the Election Commission of India and Central/State Information Commission are different, etc. Therefore, the retirement benefits sought for by Ext.P13 was not extended to the petitioner. By Ext.P17 communication dated 12.07.2021, the same stand is repeated, further holding that the pension can only be fixed as per the provisions of G.O.(P) No.199/2014/Fin. dated 29.05.2014 produced along with the writ petition as Ext.P18.

3. It is in the afore circumstances that the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

4. I have heard Sri.O.V. Radhakrishnan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

5. Sri.Radhakrishnan, the learned senior counsel, would contend that:

i. The petitioner is appointed as the State Chief Information Commissioner with reference to the provisions of Section16 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, the ‘Act’). Sub-section (5) makes it clear that a State Chief Information Commissioner is entitled for the salary and allowances as well as the terms of office and conditions of service as applicable to that of an Election Commission.

ii. With reference to the above, he contends that under the provisions of the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991 (Ext.P2 Act), under Section 3, the salary of the Chief Election Commissioner is equal to the salary of a Judge of the Supreme Court. Similarly, under Section 6(2), the pension of the Chief Election Commissioner is equal to the pension payable to a Judge of the Supreme Court. In the light of the afore, it is his contention that the petitioner was also entitled for similar treatment.

iii. He would rely on Ext.P7 Government Order dated 09.12.2008, to contend that the petitioner was entitled to pension/retirement benefits as noticed above.

iv. With reference to the provisions of the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019, (for short, the “Amendment Act”) relied on in the impugned communication, he would contend that insofar the petitioner was appointed earlier to the afore amendment, he would be entitled to be governed under the unamended provisions.

6. Per contra, Sri.Gorden, the learned Senior Government Pleader, would contend that:

i. The petitioner is not entitled to the afore benefits, in view of Ext.P18 Government Order dated 29.05.2014.

ii. The benefits available, if any, are only those admitted in the counter affidavit.

7. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records.

8. The short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is the entitlement of the petitioner for the retirement benefits as applicable to the Election Commission, as contended by him. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is appointed as the State Chief Information Commissioner under the provisions of the Act. Chapter IV to the Act provides for the State Info