VINSON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who retired as the State Chief Information Commissioner, has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Exts.P14 and P17 communications of the 2nd respondent, by which he is denied the post-retirement benefits claimed by him.

(2.) The petitioner, a member of Indian Police Service, retired on 22/11/2015. He was appointed as the State Chief Information Commissioner as evidenced by Ext.P1 notification dtd. 28/4/2016. He demitted the office on 22/11/2020 on attaining the age of 65 years. In connection with his retirement, the 2nd respondent was requested to determine the post-retirement benefits through Ext.P13 communication of the Secretary to the State Information Commission, Kerala. By Ext.P14, the 2nd respondent informed that the Government is not in a position to consider "the Chief Information Commissioners at par with retired Supreme Court Judges and the retired Election Commissioners ". It is further found that such benefits could not be extended to one class of officers, that the Central Government admitted the Election Commission of India and Central/State Information Commission are different, etc. Therefore, the retirement benefits sought for by Ext.P13 was not extended to the petitioner. By Ext.P17 communication dtd. 12/7/2021, the same stand is repeated, further holding that the pension can only be fixed as per the provisions of G.O.(P) No.199/2014/Fin. dtd. 29/5/2014 produced along with the writ petition as Ext.P18.

(3.) It is in the afore circumstances that the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner.