IMPORTANT POINT
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 states does not mandate a state to frame such rules.

JUDGMENT :

Counsel for the parties are present.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“a. To issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel. Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand vide Order No. 7345 dated 24.08.2016 whereby pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5307/2014 the representation given by the Petitioner claiming his retiral benefit has been rejected by the Respondent contrary to the provisions as laid down in Section 16(5)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and also, without any application of mind and not in its true spirit and also in view of several judgments passed by the Court of law on the same point and the rules framed thereupon.

b. To issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to the Respondent to frame rules pursuant to powers conferred under Section 27 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to govern the service condition and retirement benefit of the State Information Commissioner as has been done in the various States like Uttar Pradesh, Mizoram, Haryana, Assam, Kerala, Karnataka etc.

c. To issue appropriate writ, order or direction on the Respondents to grant the retirement benefit to the Petitioner after framing the rules inconsonance with other States of India in similar circumstance such as Pension, Gratuity, Provident Fund etc. including sumptuary like telephone facility up-to Rs. 15,000 etc. as per the provisions of Section 16(5) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by which the salaries. allowances payable to and other terms of service of the State Information Commissioner.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as State Information Commissioner on 26.07.2006 and he joined on the said post on 30.07.2006. Upon completion of five years he demitted his office on 31.07.2011. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner moved this court earlier in a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5307 of 2014 for his pensionary benefits which was disposed of vide order dated 16.03.2016 directing the State to take a decision. When the State did not take any decision, a contempt case was also filed which was numbered as Cont. Case (Civil) No. 476 of 2016 and during the pendency of the contempt case, the impugned order dated 24.08.2016 has been passed which has been enclosed along with the supplementary affidavit dated 10.02.2017.

4. The learned counsel has placed the impugned order and has submitted that as per the impugned order, the information commissioner is entitled to the same benefit as that of the Chief Secretary of the State, but in the impugned order it has been recorded that the petitioner does not satisfy the required conditions for getting pension and other benefits. The learned counsel further submits that the rules have been framed by other States in connection with grant of pensionary benefits to the Information Commissioner and those states are Mizoram, Assam, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala as well as Uttar Pradesh. But so far as State of Jharkhand is concerned, Resolution No. 6975 dated 08.07.2014 has been passed only with regard to the Chief Information Commissioner, and so far as the State Information Commissioners are concerned, they have refused to frame any rule and consequently the State of Jharkhand has no rule for paying pensionary benefits to State Information Commissioner. The learned counsel submits that State is not justified in not making any rule for payment of pensionary benefit to State Information commissioner and making the rule for payment of retiral benefits only to the State Chief Information Commissioner. Such action is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that in view of the judgment passed by the