2015 Supreme(Tri) 164
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA and U.B. SAHA, JJ.
Sri Dilip Kumar Daschaudhuri - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura and others - Respondents
WP(C) 15 OF 2012
Decided On : 16.04.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the petitioner:Mr. D.K. Daschaudhuri, Petitioner-in-person.
For the respondents:Ms. R. Guha, Advocate.
Entitlement of the State Information Commissioner to the same pay and allowances as the Chief Secretary as per Section 16(5)(b) of the Right to Information Act.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - State Information Commissioner - Section 16(5)(b)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Judicial Officer, served as State Information Commissioner and claimed pay and allowances identical to the Chief Secretary, additional pension, and interest on belated payments.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same pay and allowances as the Chief Secretary, but not entitled to additional pension on parity with the Chief Information Commissioner. The court also ruled in favor of the petitioner for interest on delayed payments.
Issues: Claim for identical pay and allowances, additional pension, and interest on belated payments.
Ratio Decidendi: The State Information Commissioner is entitled to the same pay and allowances as the Chief Secretary as per Section 16(5)(b) of the Right to Information Act. However, entitlement to additional pension is not automatic, and interest on delayed payments is permissible.
Final Decision: The petitioner's claim for identical pay and allowances was upheld, while the claim for additional pension was rejected. The court directed the State to pay interest on delayed payments and all entitled allowances to the petitioner.
Deepak Gupta, J.
The petitioner is a retired Judicial Officer. After his retirement, he was appointed as State Information Commissioner in the Tripura Information Commission and worked on the said post from 19-01-2006 to 11-10-2009, i.e. 3 years 8 months and 22 days.
2. The petitioner has claimed three reliefs. His first relief is that his pay and allowances should be identical to that of the Chief Secretary of the State and he has wrongly been denied the benefit of special allowances, such as special compensatory allowance and special duty allowance.
3. The second relief claimed by the petitioner is that additional pension for rendering service in the Information Commission should be paid to him. In this behalf, he contends that the State Chief Information Commissioner has been provided additional pension for the service rendered in the Information Commission. He has also placed reliance on the rules framed by some other States where the Information Commissioners are paid additional pension for the service rendered in the State Information Commission. Reference has been made to the rules of the State of Karnataka, State of Mizoram etc.
4. Lastly, the petitioner has claimed interest on the amounts belatedly paid to him. Though he ceased to hold the post of Information Commissioner on 11-10-2009, the dues were paid to him in January, 2013 after the filing of the present petition. The petitioner has very fairly submitted that though there was some difficulty in revising the basic pay, DA and HRA before finalization of Judicial Pension of the petitioner which was done on 04-04-2011 and communicated to the respondents on 29-04-2011 even then the payment should not have been delayed any further.
Payment of special allowances as payable to the Chief Secretary:-
5. Section 16(5)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) lays down that the pay, allowances and other terms of service of the State Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of the Chief Secretary to the State Government. Section 16(5)(b) of the Act reads as follows:-
“16.(5).The salaries and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of—
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) the State Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of the Chief Secretary to the State Government:
Provided that if the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, at the time of his appointment is, in receipt of a pension, (other than a disability or wound pension) in respect of any previous service under the Government of India or under the Government of a State, his salary in respect of the service as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall be reduced by the amount of that pension including any portion of pension which was commuted and pension equivalent of other forms of retirement benefits excluding pension equivalent of retirement gratuity:
Provided further that where the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner if, at the time of his appointment is, in receipt of retirement benefits in respect of any previous service rendered in a Corporation established by or under any Central Act or State Act or a Government company owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, his salary in respect of the service as the State Chief Information Commissioner or the State Information Commissioner shall be reduced by the amount of pension equivalent to the retirement benefits:
Provided also 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 appointment.”
6. The stand of the State Government with regard to this stand of the petitioner