LI Network
Published on: December 27, 2023 at 06:50 IST
The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that the entitlement of a State Information Commissioner (SIC) to certain benefits, based on terms granted by the Chief Secretary, does not automatically confer pensionable service status.
The Court stressed that the pensionable nature of the Chief Secretary’s post does not automatically extend the same entitlements to the State Information Commissioner.
A division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar stated, “It is only confined to the salary and allowances,” and clarified that the benefits granted by the Chief Secretary’s terms and conditions do not necessarily imply eligibility for pension.
The case involved Shristidhar Mahato, who served as a State Information Commissioner from July 30, 2006, to July 31, 2011.
After the completion of his term, Mahato sought retiral benefits, including pension. However, the authorities rejected his claim, citing the absence of provisions for pension for the State Information Commissioner post.
Mahato filed a writ petition, which was dismissed on June 15, 2023. Dissatisfied, he appealed to the High Court, arguing for entitlement to pensionary benefits based on the terms and conditions provided by the Chief Secretary.
The Court, in its ruling, emphasized that the absence of specific provisions for pension in the un-amended Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, meant that Mahato could not claim equivalence with the Chief Secretary regarding pension benefits.
The Court concluded that, based on the circumstances and existing rules, Mahato could not insist on new rules being framed to grant him pensionary benefits.
It dismissed the appeal, affirming the findings of the Single Judge that the learned Single Judge had considered all legal issues and facts, finding no error in the impugned order.
Case Title: Shristidhar Mahato vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors
