CIC Appointed Prior To 2019 RTI Amendment Act Entitled To Pensionary Benefits Equivalent To Retired Supreme Court Judge: Kerala High Court

The Principal Secretary had informed the former SCIC that the State was not in a position to consider the Chief Information Commissioner at par with the retired Supreme Court Judge and retired Election Commissioners and that the Central Government had stated that the Election Commission of India and Central/ State Information Commission of India are different. 

Against this the former SCIC Vinson M. Paul (petitioner), relying on the unamended Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act, moved the High Court.

As per the section, the State Chief Information Officer is eligible to get salaries and allowances as that of the Election Commissioner. As per the Election Commission (Condition of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991 the pension of the Chief Election Commissioner is equivalent to that of a Supreme Court Judge. 

Section 16(5) of the RTI Act was amended by the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019. For context, the section reads as follows:

"Section 16(5): The salaries and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government;

Provided that the salaries, allowances and other conditions of service of the Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall not be varied to their disadvantage after their appointment;

Provided further that the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners appointed before the commencement of the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 shall continue to be governed by the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder as if the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 had not come into force". 

As per the facts the petitioner was appointed as state CIC in 2016 and had retired in 2020. 

Justice Harisankar V. Menon said that even after the amendment, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner are unchanged on account of the 2 provisos.

The high court said that a reading of the sub-section as amended would show that the salary and allowances payable to the State Chief Information Commissioner shall be as such as may be prescribed by the Central Government. It further said:

“However, the first proviso thereto has provided that the conditions of service of the State Chief Information Commissioner is not to be varied to his disadvantage after the initial appointment. Similarly, the second proviso has laid down that those State Chief Information Commissioners who have been appointed before the commencement of the Amendment Act, shall continue to be governed by the unamended provisions.”

"In this connection, it is to be noticed that the petitioner, as seen from Ext.P1, came to be appointed as the State Chief Information Commissioner on 28.04.2016. Therefore, he is entitled to the protection extended by both the provisos to the amended sub-section as noticed above. When that be so, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits as prayed for. The impugned communication at Ext.P14 seeks to place reliance on the Amendment Act without noticing the impact of the first and second provisos to Section 16(5). To the above extent, Exts.P14 and P17 requires to be set aside," the court added. 

The Court said that the Government had 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)”. 

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates H. Vishnudas, O. V. Radhakrishnan (Sr.), George Varghese

Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. E. G. Gorden (Sr. GP)

Case No: WP(C) 29933 of 2023

Case Title: Vinson M. Paul v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 270