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 are within its domain.

JUDGMENT :

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) :

1. The instant appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against judgment/order dated 15.06.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 7335 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed declining to interfere with impugned order dated 24.08.2016 by which the representation submitted by the petitioner, in pursuance to order passed in W.P. (S) No. 5307 of 2014, has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, read as under:

3. The petitioner was appointed as State Information Commissioner vide letter no. 3899 dated 26.07.2006 along with five others. Accordingly, the petitioner joined as State Information Commissioner on 30.07.2006 and started to discharge his duties and after expiry of tenure of five years demitted his office on 31.07.2011.

4. After demitting the office on 31.07.2011, the petitioner submitted representation before the concerned respondent for the retiral benefits but it did not evoke any response as such he moved before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5307 of 2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.03.2016 directing the concerned respondent to take an informed decision in the matter of claim of post retiral and other terminal benefits of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks.

5. In terms of direction passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5307 of 2014, the petitioner approached the respondents-authorities and submitted a detailed representation but the respondents-authorities did not dispose of the representation of the petitioner and sat over the matter, as such the petitioner filed contempt case being Contempt Case (Civil) No. 476 of 2016. However, during pendency of the contempt petition the representation of the petitioner was decided vide order dated 24.08.2016 whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected stating that since the service condition of the State Information Commissioner is equivalent to that of Chief Secretary of the State and after introduction of new Pension Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2004 there is no provision for pension to the said post.

6. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No.7335 of 2016 which was dismissed vide order dated 15.06.2023, against which, the instant intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant-writ petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has assailed the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge on the following grounds:

I. That the statute requires for framing out a rule in view of provision of Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short ‘Act, 2005’) but still the State Government has not formulated the rule by making provision for pensionary benefit to be given to the holder of the post of State Information Commissioner.

II. That the writ petitioner was appointed and completed his tenure as per the condition of appointment but the pensionary benefit has not been given which is absolutely illegal and arbitrary.

III. That the writ petitioner although has filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5307 of 2014 on earlier occasion which was disposed vide order dated 16.03.2016 giving liberty to the writ petitioner to file representation for consideration of his claim but the respondent-authority while considering the claim has rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 24.08.2016 on the ground that the writ petitioner was never in service which is said to be pensionable service hence the condition as stipulated under Section 16(5) of the Act, 2005 prior to its amendment will be applicable wherein specific provision has been made that the pensionary benefit is to be given to Chief Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner who if at the time of appointment to the said post was in the pensionable service but herein the writ petitioner was never in the pensionab