JUDGMENT : Kalyan Rai Surana, J. Heard Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Ete, learned Advocate General I/c., for the State, assisted by Ms. K. Wangmo, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner was appointed as the State Chief Information Commissioner of the State of Arunachal Pradesh on 13.10.2006, and he had retired from the said post on 28.02.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act for short) and has submitted that the petitioner was entitled to salary and allowances at par with the Chief Election Commissioner of India. In this regard, it was submitted that section 8 of the Election Commission (Condition of Service of Election Commissions and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991 (1991 Act for short), provides for “other conditions of service”, and that the petitioner was entitled to all such benefit, which was enjoyable to the Election Commission. It was submitted that section 8 of 1991 Act had contained reference to the Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 (1958 Act for short) and therefore, the other service conditions of the State Chief Information Commissioner were at par with that of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India. 3. It was submitted that as per the 1991 Act and 1958 Act, the petitioner was entitled to rent-free accommodation, but he had not availed official accommodation in course of his service. By a notification No. AR-13/2007 dated 30.03.2015, published in the Arunachal Pradesh Gazette, the Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission (State Chief Information Commissioner Salaries, Allowances and other Conditions of Services) Rules, 2015 (“2015 Rules” for short) was brought into force from 12.10.2006, and that under the said Rules, the petitioner was entitled to house rent allowance (HRA for short) at the rate of 30% of basic pay at par with the Judges of the Supreme Court of India. However, as the same had not been paid from 13.10.2006 to 28.02.2011, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. It has been submitted that an Office Memorandum no. However, as the same had not been paid from 13.10.2006 to 28.02.2011, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. It has been submitted that an Office Memorandum no. 2(13)/2008 E-II(B) dated 07.01.2009, was issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, on the subject of “Decision of the Government on the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission relating to re-classification of cities/ towns for grant of HRA”, thereby providing that though cities were placed in lower classification, but the Government employees would retain the higher classification as per OM dated 29.08.2008. Accordingly, it was submitted that notwithstanding that Itanagar was classified as ‘Z’ class city, but by virtue of OM dated 07.01.2009, the petitioner would be entitled to draw HRA at the rate of 30% of basic pay. It was submitted that the revised HRA was 30% for ‘X’ category city; 20% for ‘Y’ category city; and 10% for ‘Z’ category city, which included Itanagar. It was submitted that however, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide Office Memorandum no. FIN/E-II/08/2013 dated 27.08.2013, and O.M. no. FIN/E-II/08/2013 dated 30.09.2013, retrospectively applied HRA at the rate of 10% of basic pay (band pay + grade pay + NPA wherever applicable) w.e.f. 01.09.2013, which was made subject to fulfillment of certain terms and conditions. In this regard, it was submitted that the denial of HRA to the petitioner was not sustainable on facts and in law. 5. Per contra, the learned Advocate General has vehemently opposed the prayer made in this writ petition. The learned Advocate General has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by (i) respondent no. 3, and (ii) respondent no. 4. It was submitted that at best, the petitioner would only be entitled to HRA at the rate of 10% of basic pay as per OM no. FIN/E-II/08/2013 dated 27.08.2013 issued by the Finance Department (Establishment-II), Government of Arunachal Pradesh and no more. It was also submitted that the notification dated 30.03.2015, by which HRA was fixed 30% of the basic pay was actually HRA for ‘Y’ category city and therefore, realizing the said error, a subsequent notification under No. AR-103/2006 dated 12.01.2016 was issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Administrative Reforms. It was also submitted that the notification dated 30.03.2015, by which HRA was fixed 30% of the basic pay was actually HRA for ‘Y’ category city and therefore, realizing the said error, a subsequent notification under No. AR-103/2006 dated 12.01.2016 was issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Administrative Reforms. By the said notification, “The Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission (Salaries, Allowances and other Conditions of Services) Regulations, 2015 (“2015 Regulations” for short) was notified and as per Regulation 2 thereof, the said Regulation is deemed to have come into force from the year 2006. It was specifically provided under Clause 16 of the 2015 Regulations that the Chief Information Commissioner shall be eligible for payment of HRA as per relevant norms in force under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. It was also submitted that the revised HRA that was recommended by 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC for short) was sanctioned by the Government of India for Central Government employees, w.e.f. 01.09.2008, whereas the Government of Arunachal Pradesh had sanctioned HRA at the rate of 10% for eligible State Government employees at the rate of 10% of basic pay w.e.f. 01.09.2013. It has been submitted that therefore, at the best, the petitioner might be considered for HRA from 01.09.2008 till 28.02.2011 in light of the “2015 Regulations”, which is deemed to be in force from the year 2005. It was submitted that the HRA was payable by the State Government as per locality and not as per status and therefore, it was submitted that the Judge of the Supreme Court of India are drawing HRA at the rate of 30% of basic pay because they are residing at New Delhi, being Class ‘X’ location and therefore, when Itanagar was a Class ‘Z’ location, the HRA to which the Chief Information Commissioner would be entitled to, cannot be compared at par with that to which the Judge of the Supreme Court of India is entitled to. 6. It was submitted that vide an order dated 18.10.2019, sanction was accorded for an amount of Rs.3,72,000/-(Rupees Three lakh seventy two thousand only) towards arrear payment for the period from 20.10.2006 to 28.02.2011 at the rate of 10% of HRA, (i.e. Rs.3,000/-for 1 month and Rs.9,000/-for 41 months). Thus, it was submitted that there is no further dues payable to the petitioner on account of HRA. 7. Thus, it was submitted that there is no further dues payable to the petitioner on account of HRA. 7. Upon hearing both sides, considered the materials available in the writ petition and the two affidavit-in-opposition filed separately by respondent nos. 3 and 4. 8. The stand of the learned Advocate General is that the State Government was relying on the Govt. of India OM dated 27.08.2013 and 29.08.2008, by virtue of which the city of Itanagar fell within category ‘Z’ of the OM dated 29.08.2008. Therefore, the applicable HRA would be 10% from 01.09.2008. The stand of the State in para-4 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 is that there is no specific mention about HRA in the Rules, however, without mentioning which particular rule is being referred to. Thus, it is presumed that the ‘Rule’ referred therein would be the 2015 Rules. As per sub-rule (2) of rule 1 of the 2015 Rules, the said rule has come into force from 12.10.2006. However, as per Regulation 2 of the 2015 Regulations, the said 2015 Regulation is deemed to have come into force from the year 2005. 9. The provisions of Rule 3 of the 2015 Rules provide for salary and allowances. The schedule appended to the said 2015 Rules prescribes the payment heads, eligible amount, etc. The said provisions are quoted below:- “3. The Salary and allowances of – (a) The Chief Information Commissioner shall be as specified under Section 16 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. (b) The salary and allowances of the Chief Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of an Election Commissioner. The Election Commissioner is entitled to salaries and allowances and other conditions of services of the Judge of the Supreme Court of India as amended from time to time.” *** *** *** SCHEDULE [See Rule4(a)] Sl. Payment Heads Eligible Amount Remark/ Reference 1 2 3 4 1 Basic Salary (Basic Pension drawn including commuted basic, if any, at time of appointment will be deducted from the above basic pay). Rs. 30,000/- per month. Section 12 A (2) Chapter – III of the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Condition of Service Act, 1958, Amendment Act, 2005). 2 Dearness Pay. 50% if basic calculated as above. 3 Dearness Allowance. 41% of Basic plus DP. 4 Travelling Allowance. Rs. 30,000/- per month. Section 12 A (2) Chapter – III of the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Condition of Service Act, 1958, Amendment Act, 2005). 2 Dearness Pay. 50% if basic calculated as above. 3 Dearness Allowance. 41% of Basic plus DP. 4 Travelling Allowance. Reasonable allowance to reimburse expenditure incurred in travelling on duty in India and shall be afforded such reasonable facilities as may from time to time be prescribed. Section 22 Chapter – IV Miscellaneous of the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 Amendment Act, 2005. 5 Facilities for Rent Free Houses An official furnished residence without payment of rent is to be provided Residence includes the payment of local rates and taxes and electricity and water if facility of official residence is not availed than an amount equal to thirty percent of basic salary and dearness pay is payable. The value of free furnishing (including electric appliances amounting upto Rs. tow lakh only will be provided in the residence. Section 23 (1)A Chapter- IV Miscellaneous of the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 Amendment Act, 2005. 6 Medical Facilities Such facilities for medical treatment and accommodation in hospital for self and family, as may from time to time, be actual consumption of fuel whichever is less. Section 23 (c) Chapter – IV Miscellaneous of the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 Amendment Act, 2005. 7 Conveyance Facilities Staff car and two hundred liters fuel per month or actual consumption f fuel whichever is less. Section 23 A Chapter – IV Miscellaneous of the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 Amendment Act, 2005. 8 Sumptuary Allowance Rs. 15,000 per month. Section 23 B Chapter – IV Miscellaneous of the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 Amendment Act, 2005. 9 Exemption from liability to pay Income Tax Following perquisites and allowances are exempted from payment of Income Tax Value of rent free official residence. Value of conveyance facilities. Sumptuary allowance. Leave travel concession for Self and family. Section 23 D Chapter – IV Miscellaneous of the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 Amendment Act, 2005. 10 Leave May be granted of leave in accordance member of the Indian Administrative Services. Value of conveyance facilities. Sumptuary allowance. Leave travel concession for Self and family. Section 23 D Chapter – IV Miscellaneous of the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 Amendment Act, 2005. 10 Leave May be granted of leave in accordance member of the Indian Administrative Services. Chapter – II 5 (i) of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Condition of Service Act, 1991. 11 Leave Encashment Cash equivalent of leave salary for earned leave balance is payable on retirement as per All India Service (Leave) Rules, 1955 Secton-4 A Chapter – II Leave of the Supreme Court Judges Salaries and Conditions of Service Act, 1958 Amendment Act, 2005. 12 Pension & Gratuities Pension & Gratuities are payable under section 13 to 21 (Chapter – III) of the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958. Section 13 to 21 (Chapter – III) of the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958. 10 Leave May be granted of leave in accordance member of the Indian Administrative Services. Chapter – II 5 (i) of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Condition of Service Act, 1991. 11 Leave Encashment Cash equivalent of leave salary for earned leave balance is payable on retirement as per All India Service (Leave) Rules, 1955 Secton-4 A Chapter – II Leave of the Supreme Court Judges Salaries and Conditions of Service Act, 1958 Amendment Act, 2005. 12 Pension & Gratuities Pension & Gratuities are payable under section 13 to 21 (Chapter – III) of the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958. Section 13 to 21 (Chapter – III) of the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958. 10. It would also be relevant to quote the provisions of Section 16 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which is referred to in Rule 3 of the 2015 Rules. 16. Term of office and conditions of service. (1) The State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office for such term as may be prescribed by the Central Government and shall not be eligible for reappointment: Provided that no State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office as such after he has attained the age of sixty-five years. 16. Term of office and conditions of service. (1) The State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office for such term as may be prescribed by the Central Government and shall not be eligible for reappointment: Provided that no State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office as such after he has attained the age of sixty-five years. (2) Every State Information Commissioner shall hold office for such term as may be prescribed by the Central Government or till he attains the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier, and shall not be eligible for reappointment as such State Information Commissioner: Provided that every State Information Commissioner shall, on vacating his office under this sub-section, be eligible for appointment as the State Chief Information Commissioner in the manner specified in sub-section (3) of Section 15: Provided further that where the State Information Commissioner is appointed as the State Chief Information Commissioner, his term of office shall not be more than five years in aggregate as the State Information Commissioner and the State Chief Information Commissioner. (3) The State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, shall before he enters upon his office make and subscribe before the Governor or some other person appointed by him in that behalf, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the First Schedule. (4) The State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner may, at any time, by writing under his hand addressed to the Governor, resign from his office : Provided that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner may be removed in the manner specified under Section 17. (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 State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall not be varied to their disadvantage after their appointment: Provided further that die 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. (6) The State Government shall provide the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners with such officers and employees as may be necessary for the efficient performance of their functions under this Act, and the salaries and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of the officers and other employees appointed for the purpose of this Act shall be such as may be prescribed. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had held the post of the State Chief Information Commission from 13.10.2006 till 28.02.2011. The State Government, through the Department of Administrative Reforms, in its wisdom had notified that the 2015 Regulations would be deemed to have come into force from the year 2005. However, no material has been placed before the Court by the State that the 2015 Regulations had been published in the Arunachal Pradesh Gazette. Moreover, no material has been placed before the Court that while notifying the 2015 Regulations on 12.01.2016, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Administrative Reforms was oblivious of the fact that by a previous notification dated 30.03.2015, by the same Department of Administrative Reforms, which was duly published in the Arunachal Pradesh Gazette, the 2015 Rules was notified to come into force from 12.10.2006. Thus, on 13.10.2006, the date when the petitioner was appointed as the State Chief Information Commissioner, both the 2015 Regulation as well as the 2015 Rules were in force. 12. The submission of the learned Advocate General was to the effect that Itanagar was a Class-Z city and not Class-X City and therefore, HRA was payable at 10% of basic pay and that realizing such mistake in Entry No. 5 of the Schedule appended to the 2015 Rules, where HRA was made equivalent to that of the Judge of the Supreme Court of India, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh had notified the 2015 Regulations, which came into force from the year 2005, and was in supersession of 2015 Rules. The said submissions appear to be untenable because the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, in its wisdom, did not deem it fit and appropriate to repeal the previous notification, bringing into force the 2015 Rules. 13. The said submissions appear to be untenable because the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, in its wisdom, did not deem it fit and appropriate to repeal the previous notification, bringing into force the 2015 Rules. 13. Moreover, the respondents have not been able to demonstrate by referring to any Act, Rules, Regulations, of any law within the meaning of Article 13(3) of the Constitution of India that a statutory Rule like the 2015 Rules can be deemed to have been repealed by a subsequently notified 2015 Regulations, without there being any clause to that effect. Thus, in the absence of any Regulations containing provisions for repeal of the 2015 Rules, the Court is not inclined to hold that there has been a deemed repeal of 2015 Rules by virtue of 2015 Regulations. 14. It is seen that the provisions of section 27 and 28 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 provides power to the State Government and to the competent authority to make Rules, but the respondents have not made any pleadings regarding power vested by the said 2005 Act to the State Government to notify regulations, which would over-ride the Rules framed by the Government by powers conferred under section 16 read with sections 27 and 28 of the said 2005 Act. 15. In the present case in hand, on 30.03.2015, a valuable right had accrued to the petitioner in form of his entitlement to HRA at the rate which was applicable to the Judge of the Supreme Court of India as per entry no. 5 of the Schedule appended to the 2015 Rules. In column no. 4 relating to remark/reference, mention is made of “Section 23(1) IA Chapter- IV Miscellaneous of the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 Amendment Act, 2005.” Thus, the 2015 Rules, having been enacted in exercise of power conferred under section 16 read with section 27 and 28 of the 2005 Act, has statutory force and it is reiterated at the cost of repetition that as the said 2015 Rules is not shown to have been expressly repealed, the Court is inclined to hold that the said 2015 Rules remains as a valid rule notwithstanding that subsequently the 2015 Regulations was notified to come into effect from the year 2005. The Court is further inclined to hold that in the absence of any enabling provisions in the Right to Information Act, 2005, there cannot be deemed repeal of the Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission (State Chief Information Commissioner Salaries, Allowances and other Conditions of Services) Rules, 2015. The said contention urged by the learned Advocate General of the State is repelled. 16. One more contention of the learned Advocate General to the effect that Itanagar was a Class-Z city and not Class-X City and therefore, HRA was payable at 10% of basic pay and that realizing such mistake in Entry No. 5 of the Schedule appended to the 2015 Rules, where HRA was made equivalent to that of the Judge of the Supreme Court of India, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh had notified the 2015 Regulations, which came into force from the year 2005, and was in supersession of 2015 Rules is also repelled because while under the provisions of section 114, III.(e) of the Evidence Act, 1872, Court may presume existence of the fact that official acts has been regularly performed, the learned Advocate General has not been able to refer to any provisions of law by which the Court can presume that there was commission of mistake by the State in notifying the 2015 Rules. 17. Therefore, in light of the discussions above, this writ petition succeeds. The petitioner, namely, Shri Nyodek Yonggam is found entitled to the relief of “House Rent Allowance” (HRA for short) at the rate of 30% of basic pay for the period from 13.10.2006 to 28.02.2011 while discharging his duty as State Chief Information Commissioner. The respondents are jointly and severally directed to work out the entitlement of HRA and pay the same to the petitioner after adjustment of any money that may have been paid to the petitioner as HRA. Such payment shall be made within the outer period of 3 (three) months from the date when a certified copy of this order is served on the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh (respondent no.1). 18. There shall be no order as to costs.