DATE: 21/08/2025
COURT: High Court of Gauhati
BENCH: Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and
Justice Arun Dev Choudhury
FACTS:
The case arose from a writ petition filed
by a retired State Information Commissioner of Assam, who served from
31.07.2015 to 31.12.2019. He claimed entitlement to the salaries, allowances,
and post-retiral benefits under Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act,
2005, which equates the service conditions of State Information Commissioners
to those of the Chief Secretary of a State. The learned Single Judge of the
High Court, by order dated 28.06.2024 in WP(C) 5578/2023, held that the
respondent was entitled to such benefits with effect from 01.01.2020.
Additionally, the Court declared that he was eligible for other benefits such
as additional pension, additional DCRG, and facilities including Telephone and
Security Assistant.
The State of Assam challenged this
decision, arguing primarily that the respondent did not have the required 10
years of qualifying service to claim such post-retiral benefits. The State
further contended that the judgment failed to properly apply the Division Bench
ruling in Eken Riba v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (2022), where similar issues
were considered. The respondent, however, relied on the legal fiction created
by Section 16(5) of the RTI Act, 2005, which provides parity with the Chief
Secretary’s pay and allowances, and argued that his pension under the Central
Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, should suffice without the 10-year
qualifying service requirement.
ISSUES:
The primary issue was whether a retired
State Information Commissioner, who did not have 10 years of qualifying
service, is nonetheless entitled to receive salaries, allowances, and
post-retiral benefits equivalent to those of a Chief Secretary under Section
16(5) of the RTI Act, 2005.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed
by the State of Assam and upheld the Single Judge’s ruling. It affirmed that
the respondent was entitled to all benefits under Section 16(5) of the RTI Act,
including additional pension, DCRG, and other facilities, despite lacking 10
years of qualifying service. The Court found no merit in the State’s objections
and held that the judgment under challenge represented the correct
interpretation of law.
The Court reasoned that Section 16(5) of
the RTI Act, 2005, creates a legal fiction equating the service conditions of
the State Information Commissioner with those of the Chief Secretary. This
provision ensures that the salaries, allowances, and other post-retiral
benefits payable to a State Information Commissioner cannot be less than those
of the Chief Secretary. Since the respondent was appointed before the 2019
amendment to the RTI Act, the un-amended provision applied to him, entitling
him to parity in service benefits. Thus, the requirement of 10 years’
qualifying service under the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, could
not be used to deny him these benefits, as the statutory fiction expressly
overrides such limitations.
Further, the Court observed that the
respondent was already receiving pension as a member of the Indian Audit and
Accounts Service after his retirement as OSD in the office of the Principal
Accountant General, Assam. Therefore, he was not seeking fresh pensionary
entitlement but only the additional benefits flowing from the RTI Act’s
statutory framework. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 16(5) is
to provide uniformity and dignity to the office of the State Information
Commissioner by placing it on par with that of the Chief Secretary. Denying him
these benefits on technical grounds would defeat the legislative intent.
Consequently, the Single Judge’s ruling was found to be legally correct and
required no interference.
ANALYSIS:
This case highlights the judiciary’s
approach to interpreting statutory fictions in service law, particularly in the
context of ensuring parity and dignity of office. By upholding the respondent’s
entitlement under Section 16(5) of the RTI Act, the Court reinforced that the
legislative intent behind the provision was to elevate the office of the State
Information Commissioner to a status comparable with the Chief Secretary, both
during tenure and post-retirement. The ruling clarifies that such statutory equivalence
overrides technical service rules like the 10-year qualifying period, ensuring
that benefits are not denied on procedural grounds. This interpretation
prevents the erosion of statutory guarantees and provides consistency in how
benefits are applied to constitutional and statutory offices.
Further, the decision emphasizes the
broader principle that service conditions and post-retiral entitlements linked
to high statutory offices cannot be diluted by administrative objections. By
recognizing the respondent’s existing pension from the Indian Audit and
Accounts Service and granting him additional allowances and facilities under
the RTI Act, the Court struck a balance between pension entitlements and
statutory parity. The ruling also distinguishes prior precedents, noting the
absence of comparable facts, thereby ensuring tailored justice while avoiding
overgeneralization. In effect, the judgment strengthens the authority of
statutory offices like the State Information Commission, ensuring their holders
are treated with parity and respect, which in turn bolsters the independence
and credibility of such institutions.
info@adhwaitha.com