Gauhati High Court: In an appeal filed by the State challenging the judgment and order of the Single Judge, whereby the respondent was held to be entitled to additional pension, additional Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (‘DCRG’), Telephone and Security Assistant along with the benefits and allowances under Section 16 (5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) with effect from 1-1-2020, a division bench of Ashutosh Kumar CJ*. and Arun Dev Choudhary J., stated that the respondent being a member of Union Civil Service would be governed by the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 which states that in the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules, he would be entitled to pension as provided under the said Rule. The Court thus in accordance to provisions under Section 16(5) of RTI Act and the fact that the respondent has been receiving pension after demitting his office as a member of Indian Audit Service, stated that there were no justifiable reasons to deny the respondent, additional post-retiral benefits, payable to a person of the rank of Chief Secretary, only on the ground that he did not have 10 years of qualifying service.
The respondent was appointed as State Information Commissioner on 31-07-2015 and had served till 31-12-2019. Prior to his engagement as State Information Commissioner, he was a member of the Indian Audit Service and had demitted his office as an OSD in the office of the Principal Accountant General, A&E, Assam.
The appellants had challenged the order of Single Judge primarily on the ground that the respondent lacked the qualifying 10 years of service which were required to be entitled for additional benefits and allowances which were paid to the Chief Secretary of a State.
The Court observed that since the respondent was appointed on 31-7-2015, the un-amended Section 16(5) of the RTI Act would be applicable in his case. Further, a bare reading of Section 16(5) of the RTI Act indicated that the salaries and allowances of the State Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of the Chief Secretary to the State Government.
The Court further noted that the respondent had earlier approached the Court by filing a writ petition, which was disposed with a direction to the appellants to issue a reasoned order regarding the case of the petitioner, specifically in light of the legal fiction created under Section 16(5) of the RTI Act. The Court had emphasized that the appellants should not insist on extending post-retiral benefits only to individuals who had served as Chief Secretary or in a rank equivalent to Chief Secretary. Further, Section 16(5) of the RTI Act created a deeming fiction, under which a State Information Commissioner was entitled to receive salary and post-retirement benefits equivalent to those of the Chief Secretary, regardless of their prior service rank.
The Court observed that the respondent in the present case was undoubtedly a member of Union Civil Service, who superannuated as an OSD from the office of the Principal Accountant General, A&E, Assam. Thus, he would be governed by the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 (‘1972 Rules’) and Rule 49 of the 1972 Rules states that in the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules, he would be entitled to pension as provided under the said Rule.
The Court thus, upheld the decision of Single Judge and stated that in view of the provisions contained in Section 16(5) of the RTI Act and the fact that the respondent has been receiving pension after demitting his office as a member of Indian Audit Service, there was no justifiable reasons to deny him the additional post-retiral benefits, which are payable to a person of the rank of Chief Secretary, only on the ground that the respondent did not have 10 years of qualifying service and dismissed the appeal.
[State of Assam v. Pinuel Basumatary, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 4050, decided on 21-8-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: D.K. Sarmah, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam
For the Respondent: B.D. Das, Sr. Advocate, H.K. Sarma, Advocate
