JUDGMENT : Counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “a. To issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel. Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand vide Order No. 7345 dated 24.08.2016 whereby pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5307/2014 the representation given by the Petitioner claiming his retiral benefit has been rejected by the Respondent contrary to the provisions as laid down in Section 16(5)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and also, without any application of mind and not in its true spirit and also in view of several judgments passed by the Court of law on the same point and the rules framed thereupon. b. To issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to the Respondent to frame rules pursuant to powers conferred under Section 27 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to govern the service condition and retirement benefit of the State Information Commissioner as has been done in the various States like Uttar Pradesh, Mizoram, Haryana, Assam, Kerala, Karnataka etc. c. To issue appropriate writ, order or direction on the Respondents to grant the retirement benefit to the Petitioner after framing the rules inconsonance with other States of India in similar circumstance such as Pension, Gratuity, Provident Fund etc. including sumptuary like telephone facility up-to Rs. 15,000 etc. as per the provisions of Section 16(5) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by which the salaries. allowances payable to and other terms of service of the State Information Commissioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as State Information Commissioner on 26.07.2006 and he joined on the said post on 30.07.2006. Upon completion of five years he demitted his office on 31.07.2011. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner moved this court earlier in a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5307 of 2014 for his pensionary benefits which was disposed of vide order dated 16.03.2016 directing the State to take a decision. When the State did not take any decision, a contempt case was also filed which was numbered as Cont. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner moved this court earlier in a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5307 of 2014 for his pensionary benefits which was disposed of vide order dated 16.03.2016 directing the State to take a decision. When the State did not take any decision, a contempt case was also filed which was numbered as Cont. Case (Civil) No. 476 of 2016 and during the pendency of the contempt case, the impugned order dated 24.08.2016 has been passed which has been enclosed along with the supplementary affidavit dated 10.02.2017. 4. The learned counsel has placed the impugned order and has submitted that as per the impugned order, the information commissioner is entitled to the same benefit as that of the Chief Secretary of the State, but in the impugned order it has been recorded that the petitioner does not satisfy the required conditions for getting pension and other benefits. The learned counsel further submits that the rules have been framed by other States in connection with grant of pensionary benefits to the Information Commissioner and those states are Mizoram, Assam, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala as well as Uttar Pradesh. But so far as State of Jharkhand is concerned, Resolution No. 6975 dated 08.07.2014 has been passed only with regard to the Chief Information Commissioner, and so far as the State Information Commissioners are concerned, they have refused to frame any rule and consequently the State of Jharkhand has no rule for paying pensionary benefits to State Information Commissioner. The learned counsel submits that State is not justified in not making any rule for payment of pensionary benefit to State Information commissioner and making the rule for payment of retiral benefits only to the State Chief Information Commissioner. Such action is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 11 SCC 42 (State of Himachal Pradesh & Other versus Satpal Saini) no mandamus can be issued directing the State government to make rules in as much as the power to frame rules is Legislative in nature. The learned counsel submits that grant of pensionary benefit is a matter of policy and the State has chosen to give pensionary benefit only to the State Chief Information Commissioner and no rule has been framed to give pensionary benefits to State Information Commissioner. She has also submitted that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 24.08.2016 on the ground that there is no provision for grant of retiral benefits to State Information Commissioner and the salary and other allowance would be payable to State Information Commissioner in the same manner as that of Chief Secretary to the State Government and as per the new pension scheme, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit. The petitioner even does not satisfy the basic eligibility criteria of getting pension, i.e. 10 years of service and the petitioner was appointed on the said post for tenure of five years only and before being appointed as State Information Commissioner, the petitioner was not in government service. Admissible amount has already been paid to the petitioner. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that admittedly the petitioner was not in government service prior to his appointment as State Information Commissioner and the petitioner was appointed on 26.07.2006, joined on 30.07.2006 and demitted his office on 31.07.2011 after completion of five years. As per the statutory provision in terms of Section 16(5) (b) of Right to Information Act, 2005, salary and allowances payable to State Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of Chief Secretary of the State government. The petitioner moved this court earlier in W.P.(S) No. 5307 of 2014 and the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the direction to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. From perusal of the impugned order dated 24.08.2016 it has been recorded that the petitioner does not satisfy the condition for grant of pension in terms of the rules governing the Chief Secretary of the State. It has been also recorded that w.e.f. 01.04.2004 new pension has come into effect in connection of members of All India Service and the provisions of old pension and general provident fund has been discontinued. The other allowances have also been discontinued. The petitioner is not entitled for other allowances as has been mentioned in the impugned order. It has been also recorded that w.e.f. 01.04.2004 new pension has come into effect in connection of members of All India Service and the provisions of old pension and general provident fund has been discontinued. The other allowances have also been discontinued. The petitioner is not entitled for other allowances as has been mentioned in the impugned order. It has also been recorded that the petitioner is not entitled for pension in terms of the resolution dated 08.07.2014 and the claim of the petitioner for pension has been rejected. 7. So far the argument that the action of the respondents is arbitrary in taking decision for payment of pension only to State Chief Information Commissioner and not taking any decision with regard to State Information Commissioners is concerned , this court is of the considered view that State Information Commissioners cannot be said to be identically placed as compared to State Chief Information Commissioner and therefore the action of the state in providing pension only to State Chief Information Commissioner and not framing any rule for State Information Commissioners can neither be said to be arbitrary nor can be said to be discriminatory so as to attract Article 14 of the constitution of India. 8. So far as the argument of the petitioner that other states have framed rules for making payment of retiral benefits to the State Information Commissioners is concerned, this court is of the considered view that making of rules for post retiral benefit is essentially a matter of policy and a Legislative Act and therefore merely because other states have framed certain rules and granted certain benefits to the State Information Commissioners in the State, the same by itself is not sufficient to issue a mandamus upon the State of Jharkhand for framing rules and consequently extend similar benefits to the petitioner. Accordingly, this court finds no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed. 9. This court has gone through the impugned order and finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order calling for any interference under article 226 of the constitution of India. 10. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.