The Kerala High Court has ruled that a Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) appointed before the 2019 amendment to the Right to Information (RTI) Act is entitled to pension benefits equal to those of a retired Supreme Court judge.
This judgment came after the court quashed a letter issued by the State Government, which had denied pensionary benefits to former State CIC Vinson M. Paul. The letter had informed him that he was not eligible for the same benefits as retired judges of the Supreme Court or Election Commissioners.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Orders Removal of Defamatory Posts Against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla’s Daughter
Quoting the Principal Secretary’s stance, the State argued that the CIC could not be considered at par with retired judges. It also cited communication from the Central Government, stating that the Election Commission and the Information Commission are different institutions.
"The Government relied on the Amendment Act to deny the claim of the petitioner without noticing the impact of the first and second provisos to Section 16(5)," the Court observed.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Slams Abuse of Writ Jurisdiction for Fraudulent GST Claims; ₹1 Lakh Cost Imposed
Challenging this, petitioner Vinson M. Paul approached the High Court, relying on the unamended Section 16(5) of the RTI Act. He was appointed CIC in April 2016 and retired in 2020—well before the amendment came into force.
Under the original Section 16(5) of the RTI Act, a State CIC is entitled to the same salary and allowances as an Election Commissioner. As per the 1991 Election Commission Act, the Chief Election Commissioner’s pension equals that of a retired Supreme Court judge.
Read Also:- CJI Sanjiv Khanna Emphasizes: "Public Trust in Judiciary Must Be Earned, Not Commanded"
In 2019, the RTI Act was amended. The amended Section 16(5) gives the Central Government the authority to decide service conditions. However, it includes two key provisos:
"The first proviso states that service conditions cannot be changed to the disadvantage of those already appointed."
"The second proviso clarifies that CICs appointed before the amendment will continue to be governed by the old rules."
Justice Harisankar V. Menon emphasized these provisos, stating that they clearly protect the rights of those appointed before the amendment.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Permits Disabled Candidates to Change Scribe for UPSC Civil Services Exam Till May 18
The Court also noted that the State's denial letter failed to consider these legal protections. It held that the petitioner’s benefits remained unchanged despite the amendment.
"When that be so, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits as prayed for," Justice Menon added.
As a result, the Court set aside the communications denying the pension and allowed the petition.
Case Details:
- Case No: WP(C) 29933 of 2023
- Case Title: Vinson M. Paul v State of Kerala and Another
- Petitioner’s Counsel: H. Vishnudas, O. V. Radhakrishnan (Sr.), George Varghese
- Respondents’ Counsel: E. G. Gorden (Senior Government Pleader)
