Ujjal Bhuyan, J.—Heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram for the respondents. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of State Chief Information Commissioner, Mizoram (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 as being ultra vires to the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 as well as letter dated 11.3.2013 of the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Finance Department (APF Branch) addressed to the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts & Treasuries, Aizawl, Mizoram informing the latter that petitioner is not entitled to pension for his service as State Chief Information Commissioner. Petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to grant him pension and special duty allowance for rendering service as State Chief Information Commissioner, Mizoram and for issuance of regular pay slip. 2. Petitioner is a retired IAS officer. He retired from service w.e.f. 28.02.2005. 3. Following enactment of Right to Information Act, 2005, State of Mizoram constituted Mizoram State Information Commission on 29.06.2006. By notification dated 3.07.2006, petitioner was appointed by the Governor of Mizoram as the State Chief Information Commissioner, Mizoram. Terms and conditions of service mentioned in the appointment order indicated that conditions of service would be governed by the terms and conditions laid down in Section 16 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). Petitioner was administered oath and joined office as State Chief Information Commissioner on 5.07.2006. After serving for about 4 years, petitioner laid down office of State Chief Information Commissioner w.e.f. 1.2.2010, having attained the age of 65 years. 4. Grievance of the petitioner is that though he is entitled to special duty allowance (SDA) during his service as State Chief Information Commissioner as well as pension for rendering service as such, he has been denied both. His further grievance is that he was only issued provisional pay slip instead of regular pay slip, which affected his pay and pension. 5. From a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and on considering the submissions made during the course of hearing, it appears that the core grievance of the petitioner is non-payment of SDA and pension for rendering service as State Chief Information Commissioner. As such, the above two grievances are being discussed and deliberated upon under separate heads. SDA 6. As such, the above two grievances are being discussed and deliberated upon under separate heads. SDA 6. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court along with the State Information Commissioner and Secretary, Mizoram State Information Commission by filing W.P.(C) No. 3/2010 seeking a direction to the respondents to grant SDA. This Court noticed that the petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 3/2010 had submitted a representation before the Chief Controller of Accounts on 10.09.2009 seeking the aforesaid relief. In view of above, W.P.(C) No. 3/2010 was disposed of vide order dated 25.1.2010 directing the Chief Controller of Accounts to examine the sustainability of the claim of the petitioners within a period of 2 (two) months. 7. According to the petitioner, his counterpart in Meghalaya was granted SDA. Therefore, there could be no justification to deny such allowance to the petitioner. Though this Court had directed the Chief Controller of Accounts to examine the sustainability of the claim, no decision has been taken thereon. Petitioner has relied upon office memorandum dated 29.08.2008 of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of India providing SDA to civilian employees of the Central Government serving in the North Eastern region and in Ladakh. It provided that SDA allowed to the Central Government employees including All India Service Officers posted in North Eastern region would be granted to such employees posted at Ladakh w.e.f. 1.9.2008. Petitioner has also pointed out that Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram is also granted SDA. On such analogy, he claims that he should also be granted SDA for the period he held office as State Chief Information Commissioner. 8. Respondents in their affidavit have taken the stand that SDA is meant for serving All India Service Officers and cannot be paid to retired All India Service Officers on fresh appointment for a specified locality such as the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on a letter of the Finance Department, Government of Mizoram dated 13.11.2007 addressed to the Director of Accounts & Treasuries, Mizoram, conveying the decision of the Government that SDA is meant for serving All India Service Officers and it could not be made applicable to retired All India Service Officers on fresh appointment for specified locality. Reliance has been placed on a letter of the Finance Department, Government of Mizoram dated 13.11.2007 addressed to the Director of Accounts & Treasuries, Mizoram, conveying the decision of the Government that SDA is meant for serving All India Service Officers and it could not be made applicable to retired All India Service Officers on fresh appointment for specified locality. It is stated that case of the petitioner is different from the case of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram since the post of Chief Secretary is held by a serving All India Service Officer while the petitioner is a retired All India Service Officer. Chief Controller of Accounts examined the claim of the petitioner for payment of SDA following the order of this Court dated 25.1.2010. By communication dated 22.2.2010, Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts & Treasuries, Mizoram informed the Finance Department, Government of Mizoram that claim of the petitioner to SDA was examined and it was found that SDA which is admissible to employees of Central Government posted/working in the North Eastern region has not been granted by Government of Mizoram to its employees. Since petitioner was appointed by the Government of Mizoram, his claim to SDA was found inadmissible. 9. There is substance in the contention of the respondents. A careful perusal of the office memorandum dated 29.8.2008 relied upon by the petitioner would reveal that SDA is granted to the Central Government employees including officers of the All India Services serving in the North Eastern region. In the case of the petitioner, he had already retired as an IAS officer on 28.2.2005. He was subsequently appointed as State Chief Information Commissioner, Mizoram by the Government of Mizoram. Thus, it was an appointment by the Government of Mizoram for holding an office whose jurisdiction was confined to the State of Mizoram. Had the petitioner not retired as IAS officer and in his capacity as an IAS officer had he been posted in the North Eastern region, he would certainly have been entitled to SDA but the present position is quite different. As noticed above, petitioner had retired from his All India Service. Thereafter, he was given fresh appointment as State Chief Information Commissioner by the Government of Mizoram. As noticed above, petitioner had retired from his All India Service. Thereafter, he was given fresh appointment as State Chief Information Commissioner by the Government of Mizoram. Since it is an appointment by the Government of Mizoram, petitioner cannot claim SDA as a Central Government employee posted in the North Eastern region inasmuch as petitioner's aforesaid service as State Chief Information Commissioner did not have all India transfer liability. It is not a case that in the course of his All India Service, he was given a posting in the North Eastern region for which he would be entitled to SDA. 10. Insofar grant of SDA to the Meghalaya State Chief Information Commissioner is concerned, in the absence of adequate materials, no support to the petitioner would be available therefrom. Since it is the petitioner who has approached the Court, his claim would have to be legally tested on its own standing. 11. Thus, in view of the above discussion, this Court finds the claim of the petitioner to SDA to be not at all justified and untenable in law. The said prayer is accordingly rejected. PENSION 12. By notification dated 3.7.2006, petitioner was appointed by the Governor of Mizoram as the State Chief Information Commissioner. The said appointment was made in exercise of power conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act. It was further stated that the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner would be governed by the terms and conditions laid down in Section 16 of the Act. 13. Section 16 of the Act deals with terms of office and conditions of service: Relevant portion of the aforesaid Section provides that the State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office for a term of 5 years from the date on which he enters office and shall not be eligible for reappointment. As per the proviso to sub-section (1), no State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office after he attained the age of 65 years. Under sub-section (5), salary and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of the State Chief Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of an Election Commissioner. As per the proviso to sub-section (1), no State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office after he attained the age of 65 years. Under sub-section (5), salary and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of the State Chief Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of an Election Commissioner. As per the proviso, if the State Chief Information Commissioner at the time of his appointment is in receipt of a regular pension in respect of any previous service under the Government of India or under the Government of a State, his salary in respect of his service as the State Chief Information Commissioner shall be reduced by the amount of that pension. 14. Thus, it is clear from a reading of Section 16(5) of the Act that the salary and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of the State Chief Information Commissioner is the same as that of an Election Commissioner. 15. Petitioner has averred and has extensively referred to in his pleadings the provisions of the Election Commissioner (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991, as amended. As per Section 6 of the said Act, pension is payable to Election Commissioners. A person who immediately before assuming office as Chief Election Commissioner or Election Commissioner was in service of Government, shall be deemed to have retired from service on the date on which he enters office as Chief Election Commissioner or Election Commissioner but his subsequent service as Chief Election Commissioner or Election Commissioner shall be reckoned as continuous approved service counting for pension in service to which he belonged. When the Chief Election Commissioner or the Election Commissioner demits office, he shall be entitled to pension equal to the pension paid to a Judge of the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of the Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 and such other pension as are admissible to a Judge of the Supreme Court. 16. When the Chief Election Commissioner or the Election Commissioner demits office, he shall be entitled to pension equal to the pension paid to a Judge of the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of the Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 and such other pension as are admissible to a Judge of the Supreme Court. 16. Thus, a conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 16(5) of the Act and Section 6 of the Election Commissioner (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991 would make it clear that a State Chief Information Commissioner on demitting office would be entitled to pension as payable to a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, just like the Chief Election Commissioner or Election Commissioner. 17. Respondents in their affidavit have taken the stand that State of Mizoram in exercise of powers conferred by Section 27(1) read with Section 16(1) and 5(a) of the Act has framed a set of Rules called the State Chief Information Commissioner, Mizoram (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012, specifying the terms and conditions of service of the State Chief Information Commissioner, Mizoram. As per Rule 2, the above 2012 Rules would come into force from the date of its publication in the Mizoram Gazette. The 2012 Rules were published in the Mizoram Gazette Extraordinary on 16.1.2013. As per Rule 8(3), the State Chief Information Commissioner would be entitled during his lifetime a payment of Rs. 14,000/- per month for defraying the services of an orderly and for meeting the expenses incurred towards secretarial assistance on contract basis just like Supreme Court Judges and Election Commissioners. Rule 9(A)(1) of the 2012 Rules provides that a person who immediately before assuming the office of State Chief Information Commissioner, Mizoram was in Government service, he shall be deemed to have retired from service on the date on which he assumes office as State Chief Information Commissioner but his subsequent service as the State Chief Information Commissioner, Mizoram shall be reckoned as continuing approved service counting for pension in the service to which he belonged. Thus, under the provisions of the 2012 Rules, State Chief Information Commissioner is specifically entitled to pension as his tenure as State Chief Information Commissioner would be counted as continuing approved service for pension in service to which he belonged. Thus, under the provisions of the 2012 Rules, State Chief Information Commissioner is specifically entitled to pension as his tenure as State Chief Information Commissioner would be counted as continuing approved service for pension in service to which he belonged. This provision is identical to the provision of Section 6(1) of the Election Commissioner (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991. 18. However, the stand of the State as can be seen from the impugned communication dated 11.3.2013 as well as from the affidavit is that since the 2012 Rules were not in force before 16.1.2013, it would not be appropriate to grant pension to the petitioner, who demitted office of State Chief Information Commissioner on 1.2.2010. 19. This contention of the respondents is fallacious inasmuch as entitlement to pension of State Chief Information Commissioner is traceable to Section 16(5) of the Act. Once the statute provides such a benefit, the same cannot be curtailed or given effect to from a latter date by a subordinate legislation. Moreover, when the 2012 Rules expressly provides pensionary benefit to State Chief Information Commissioner, it would be incongruous and an anomalous situation to grant pension to one State Chief Information Commissioner and deny the same to another State Chief Information Commissioner only on the ground that the latter had retired before coming into force of the 2012 Rules. 20. Thus, in view of the clear mandate of Section 16(5) of the Act, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the State Chief Information Commissioner, Mizoram is entitled to pension w.e.f. the date the Mizoram State Information Commission came into existence. 21. That being the position, petitioner would be entitled to pension for the services rendered by him as State Chief Information Commissioner. Accordingly, this claim of the petitioner is allowed. 22. In view of the above discussion and decision, the concerned authorities shall now issue the regular pay slip of the petitioner to enable him to draw pension, which would include pension for the services rendered as State Chief Information Commissioner, Mizoram. 23. Having regard to the above, deliberation on the validity of the 2012 Rules is considered not necessary. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to cost.