ORDER : (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) Question involved: - 1. The short question involved in this writ petition is, whether the petitioner, who was the State Information Commissioner appointed from amongst the members of Bar having completed the tenure of his periodic appointment on the post of State Information Commissioner, is entitled for superannuation pension under Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the RTI Act’) (unamended prior to 24-10-2019) equivalent to that of Chief Secretary of the State? This inquiry necessitates a deep understanding of the legal and constitutional principles governing pensions for State officials, particularly in light of the service conditions, responsibilities and objectives underlying the provision of pensions. Relevant facts in brief: - 2. The aforesaid question of law arises in the following factual backdrop: - 2.1) The petitioner being a member of Bar was appointed by the State Government as State Information Commissioner (SIC), Chhattisgarh vide notification dated 6-9-2009 in exercise of the power under Section 15(3) of the RTI Act. He took oath on 22-9-2008 as SIC for a period of five years and completed his tenure on 22-9-2013 as State Information Commissioner and demitted the office accordingly. He was paid salary & allowances for the aforesaid period. On 8-7-2015, the petitioner filed this instant writ petition seeking a direction to the State / respondent No.1 to provide pre and post retiral benefits and pension to him as per Section 16 of the RTI Act and a further direction to the State / respondent No.1 to make compliance of the provisions of the RTI Act laying down the terms and conditions of service of State Information Commissioners and to grant the said benefit to the petitioner. 2.2) It is the case of the petitioner that Section 16(5) of the RTI Act clearly mandates and makes the petitioner entitled for pension, as the petitioner was allowed all other benefits i.e. salary & allowances in terms of Section 16 of the RTI Act except pension and retiral benefits which he is entitled for and respondents No.1 & 2 / State in their reply have not disputed and denied the entitlement of the petitioner to get pension and the State Government has also framed draft rules, but not yet implemented, and therefore he is entitled for pension and thus seeks appropriate writ of mandamus in this regard. 3. 3. The State of Chhattisgarh / respondents No.1 & 2 has filed return stating inter alia that the petitioner was appointed as State Information Commissioner under Section 15(3) of the RTI Act and by virtue of Section 16(5) of the RTI Act (unamended), he was entitled for salary & allowances which he was paid during his tenure of five years. It was further pleaded that the second proviso to Section 16(5) (unamended) clearly stipulates that for entitlement of pension, the person must be in receipt of pension or must have a pensionable service at the time of appointment and order dated 6-9-2008 (Annexure P-1) by which the petitioner was appointed as State Information Commissioner does not specify that the petitioner was in receipt of pension or his previous service was pensionable service. It was also pleaded that the RTI Act does not provide for pension and retiral benefits to the petitioner. The second proviso to Section 16(5) of the RTI Act (unamended) does not include grant of pension in absence of a previous pensionable service held by the petitioner and as such, he is not entitled for pension, as the Government has not framed any rules in respect of the salaries and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of the officers and other employees under sub-section (6) of Section 13 and sub-section (6) of Section 16 of the RTI Act as stipulated under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the petitioner’s writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner: - 4. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, would submit that right and entitlement of the petitioner for grant of pension is clearly mandated under Section 16(5) of the RTI Act, the expression “conditions of service” means and includes within it pension and discrimination cannot be made on account of source of entrance in a particular post and making classification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He would rely upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts to buttress his submission: 1. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shardul Singh, 1970(1) SCC 108 of the Supreme Court of India. 2. State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, 1989(1) SCC 321 of the Supreme Court of India. 3. He would rely upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts to buttress his submission: 1. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shardul Singh, 1970(1) SCC 108 of the Supreme Court of India. 2. State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, 1989(1) SCC 321 of the Supreme Court of India. 3. Shri Prashant S.P. Tendolkar v. State of Goa and others, W.P.No.433/2021, decided on 1-8-2024 of the Bombay High Court at Goa (Division Bench). 4. S. Somanathan Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR OnLine 2023 Ker 302 of the Kerala High Court (Single Bench). 5. Wing Commander G B Athri (Retd.) v. Union of India and others, W.P.No.52207/2017 (GM-RES) PIL, decided on 14-7-2021 of the Karnataka High Court (Division Bench). 6. Robert Hrangdawla, IAS and SCIC (Rtd.) v. State of Mizoram and others, 2014 LAB. I.C. 504 of the Gauhati High Court (Single Bench). 7. Sri Nyodek Yonggam and others v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, WP (C) 329 (AP) 2013, decided on 22-8-2014 of the Gauhati High Court (Single Bench). 8. H.N. Krishna v. State of Karnataka and others, W.P.No.23010/2015 (S-R) decided on 21-11-2017 of the Karnataka High Court (Single Bench). 9. The State of Karnataka and others v. Union of India and another, W.A.No.661/2018 (S-R), decided on 23-8-2018 of the Karnataka High Court (Division Bench). Submissions on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh:- 5. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh / respondents No.1 & 2, would submit that the RTI Act does not provide for any provision for grant of pension and retiral benefits to the State Information Commissioner whose appointment was periodical appointment and there is no right to the petitioner to claim pension, as the petitioner being the member of Bar was not holding pensionable post on the date of his appointment as SIC, as he was the member of Bar. He would further submit that the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the RTI Act (unamended) does not include grant of pension in absence of a previous pensionable service. He would further submit that the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the RTI Act (unamended) does not include grant of pension in absence of a previous pensionable service. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Prabhu Narain v. State of U.P., (2004) 13 SCC 662 to demonstrate that the concerned employee must show that he is entitled to pension under a particular rule or scheme, and according to him, the decision of the Supreme Court in Prabhu Narain (supra) has been followed with approval in a very recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of UP Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v. State of U.P. and another, Civil Appeal No.894 of 2020, decided on 26-7-2024. He would also submit that in order to qualify for pension, some minimum service is always prescribed and the petitioner does not have qualifying service for the purpose of pension as in the case of Chief Secretary of the State. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record carefully and minutely as well. 7. Before adverting to the relevant provisions, it would be appropriate to notice the object & purpose of pension and concept of pension as well as, as to who has the right to pension. Object and Purpose of Pension: - 8. The pension system for Government officials in India is designed as a social security measure that aims to provide financial support and security to individuals who have dedicated their professional lives to public service. The underlying rationale for pensions is not merely to compensate for past services but to ensure a dignified and sustainable standard of living post-retirement, when the individual no longer receives a regular salary. The primary objective of a pension is to serve as a financial safety net for Government employees who, upon reaching the age of superannuation or retirement, cease to earn a regular income. This support is crucial in maintaining a standard of living that is commensurate with their pre-retirement status. The primary objective of a pension is to serve as a financial safety net for Government employees who, upon reaching the age of superannuation or retirement, cease to earn a regular income. This support is crucial in maintaining a standard of living that is commensurate with their pre-retirement status. The pension is a recognition of the fact that after a lifetime of public service, during which the individual was not permitted to engage in other professional work or earn a secondary income, they require a stable and reliable source of income to meet their post-retirement needs. Concept of Pension: - 9. The concept of pension is closely tied to the idea of rewarding long-term dedication and service to the Government. The eligibility for pension is typically contingent upon completing a minimum qualifying period of 10 years of service. This criterion underscores the notion that pension is not an entitlement for any brief or temporary service but is instead a reward for sustained and significant contributions to the public sector. The longer the period of service, the greater the pension benefits, reflecting the proportionality between the duration of service and the post-retirement financial support. 10. Conceptually, pension is a reward for past service. It is determined on the basis of length of service and last pay drawn. Length of service is determinative of eligibility and the quantum of pension. {See State of Punjab v. Justice S.S. Dewan (Retired Chief Justice) and others, (1997) 4 SCC 569 .} 11. According to Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn, p 1134 pension means: “Retirement benefit paid regularly (normally monthly), with the amount of such based generally on length of employment and amount of wages or salary of pensioner. Deferred compensation for services rendered.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. The concept of pension is now well known and has been clarified by their Lordships of the Supreme Court time and again. It is not a charity or bounty nor is it gratuitous payment solely dependent on the whim or sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering long service and is often described as deferred portion of compensation for past service. It is in fact in the nature of a social security plan to provide for the December of life of a superannuated employee. It is earned for rendering long service and is often described as deferred portion of compensation for past service. It is in fact in the nature of a social security plan to provide for the December of life of a superannuated employee. Such social security plans are consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the Constitution when the employer is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. (See All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and others v. Union of India and another, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 664.) Right to Pension: - 13. In the matter of D.V. Kapoor v. Union of India and others, (1990) 4 SCC 314 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the employee’s right to pension is a statutory right. Therefore, deprivation of such right must be in accordance with law. 14. In the matter of Union of India and another v. P.D. Yadav, (2002) 1 SCC 405, it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that no doubt, pension is not a bounty but it is the earning of a person after satisfactory completion of qualifying service and if not otherwise disentitled. 15. In the matter of State of Punjab and others v. Amar Nath Goyal and others, (2005) 6 SCC 754 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have reiterated that the right to receive pension is not an inherent right but is contingent upon fulfilling the conditions prescribed by the law. Their Lordships emphasized that pension is a privilege extended to those who have demonstrated a consistent commitment to public service. 16. In Prabhu Narain (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that to receive pension the employees must establish that they are entitled to pension under a particular rule or scheme, and it has been held by their Lordships in paragraph 5 as under: - “5. No doubt pension is not a bounty, it is a valuable right given to an employee, but, in the first place it must be shown that the employee is entitled to pension under a particular rule or the scheme, as the case may be.” 17. No doubt pension is not a bounty, it is a valuable right given to an employee, but, in the first place it must be shown that the employee is entitled to pension under a particular rule or the scheme, as the case may be.” 17. The decision in Prabhu Narain (supra) has been followed further in UP Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association (supra) wherein the Supreme Court speaking through Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. has held that pension can be claimed only when it is permissible under the relevant rules or a scheme, and observed in paragraph 35 as under: - “35. The common thread in the above referred judgments of this Court is that pension is a right and not a bounty. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is entitled on his superannuation. However, pension can be claimed only when it is permissible under the relevant rules or a scheme. If an employee is covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension, nor the writ court can issue mandamus directing the employer to provide pension to an employee who is not covered under the rules. 18. From the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that pension is a constitutional right for which an employee is entitled on his superannuation and it must be permissible under the relevant service rules applicable to the concerned Government servant and person claiming pension must establish that he or she is entitled to pension under a particular rule or scheme, as the case may be. Relevant statutory provisions in the RTI Act: - 19. Now, in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant provisions under which the petitioner has claimed pension on the post of State Information Commissioner on which he worked. Section 16(5) of the RTI Act as unamended prior to its amendment from 24-10-2019, stood as under: - “16. Section 16(5) of the RTI Act as unamended prior to its amendment from 24-10-2019, stood as under: - “16. Term of office and conditions of service.— (1) to (4) xxxxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (5) The salaries and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of— (a) the State Chief Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of an Election Commissioner; (b) the State Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of the Chief Secretary to the State Government: Provided that if the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, at the time of his appointment is, in receipt of a pension (other than a disability or wound pension) in respect of any previous service under the Government of India or under the Government of a State, his salary in respect of the service as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall be reduced by the amount of that pension including any portion of pension which was commuted and pension equivalent of other forms of retirement benefits excluding pension equivalent of retirement gratuity: Provided further that where the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner if, at the time of his appointment is, in receipt of retirement benefits in respect of any previous service rendered in a Corporation established by or under any Central Act or State Act or a Government company owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, his salary in respect of the service as the State Chief Information Commissioner or the State Information Commissioner shall be reduced by the amount of pension equivalent to the retirement benefits: Provided also 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.” However, this provision suffered amendment by Act 24 of 2019 and the amended provision states as under: - “(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 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.” Legal Analysis and Reasoning: - 20. A careful perusal of Section 16(5)(a) of the RTI Act (unamended) would show that the salaries 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. The first proviso to Section 16(5) of the RTI Act is pari materia to Section 10(2) of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 as amended. The effect of first proviso to Section 16(5) of the RTI Act (unamended) would be that a person appointed to the office of the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, if he was holding earlier the post either under the Central Government or the State Government which entitled him for pension and other retirement benefits under the rules applicable to the service to which he belonged to, prior to the date of his appointment in this post, then his salary in respect of the service as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall be reduced to the extent of that pension, meaning thereby, he (State Chief Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner) can carry his pension which was allowed to him for the service rendered by him earlier to joining the post of State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner. As such, pension which the concerned State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner was getting on the date of his appointment in this post (SIC), is saved and protected and even after demitting the office of State Chief Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner, he/she will be getting the pension as per rules. Section 16(5)(b) of the RTI Act (unamended) provides that the salaries and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of the State Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of the Chief Secretary of the State Government. 21. The petitioner has claimed that “other terms and conditions” employed in Section 16(5) of the RTI Act would include right to pension, as “other terms and conditions of service” of the State Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of the Chief Secretary to the State Government. 21. The petitioner has claimed that “other terms and conditions” employed in Section 16(5) of the RTI Act would include right to pension, as “other terms and conditions of service” of the State Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of the Chief Secretary to the State Government. However, this analogy cannot be considered in isolation, as the petitioner herein was earlier not holding the pensionable post prior to his appointment on the post of State Information Commissioner and he was directly appointed on the said post without holding any civil post under the Central or State Government or any Corporation prior to his appointment, as he was the member of Bar (Advocate). The effect of first proviso to Section 16(5) of the RTI Act (unamended) is required to be considered in two situations, firstly, for the person who is directly appointed on the said post without holding the civil post under the Central/State Government prior to his appointment like the petitioner herein and secondly, the incumbent who holds such civil post such as Chief Secretary of the State. The first proviso appended to Section 16(5) of the RTI Act only directs the reduction of salary attached to the said post to the extent of the amount of pension which the incumbent was holding as being pensionable service at the time of his appointment. However, Section 16 of the RTI Act does not prescribe further about any superannuation pension. It is evidently clear that after demitting the said post, the person who was earlier getting pension as civil servant would carry his pension which was drawn by him prior to his appointment on the post of State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, and after demitting the office, he will not be entitled for pension against the post of SIC or SCIC while in service either as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, if earlier he was not holding the pensionable post. 22. The issue can be considered from another view point. The post of State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner has not been shown to be pensionable post. 22. The issue can be considered from another view point. The post of State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner has not been shown to be pensionable post. However, Chief Secretary to the State Government has definitely been given the benefit of pension on the basis of the rules governing the service of the person holding the post of Chief Secretary and it is by virtue of the rules governing the service under which he holds the said post (Chief Secretary), which provides for grant of pension. Pension is one of the terms and conditions under the rules applicable to the service to which he belongs and that too subject to various conditions like qualifying period of service, etc. and it is only by virtue of the applicable rules that the incumbent is entitled for pension. As such, the State Information Commissioner is only entitled for salary and allowances payable to him and other terms and conditions attached to the post of Chief Secretary to the State Government which the Chief Secretary is entitled for, but not pension and therefore, under the rules, there is no right to pension to the SIC or SCIC. 23. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of T. Ramakrishniah v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 3 SCC 619 may be noticed herein profitably. In that case, the appellant before the Supreme Court was appointed as a member of the Karnataka Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for a period of two years and thereafter his appointment was continued from time to time under the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957, and the appointment of the appellant (therein) was part-time in nature. The appellant claimed superannuation pension which was denied by their Lordships of the Supreme Court holding that the Mysore Civil Service Rules, 1957 will not apply to the appellant therein, as the appellant’s (therein) appointment was periodical and not up to a maximum age nor it was a whole-time service but a part-time one. Their Lordships pertinently observed in paragraph 11 of the report as under: - “11. The appointment of the appellant is periodical and not up to a maximum age nor it is a wholetime service but a parttime one and the appellant was permitted to take up audit of any person, firm, institution etc. on certain restrictions. A government servant has to render wholetime service. The appointment of the appellant is periodical and not up to a maximum age nor it is a wholetime service but a parttime one and the appellant was permitted to take up audit of any person, firm, institution etc. on certain restrictions. A government servant has to render wholetime service. Therefore, considering all these aspects it has been found by the High Court that the Mysore Civil Service Rules, 1957 do not apply to the appellant and as such he is not eligible for superannuation pension. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court which is unexceptionable.” 24. Section 16(6) of the RTI Act, as unamended, mandates the State Government to provide the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners, the salaries and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service as may be prescribed. It states as under: - “(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.” 25. The rule making power of the State Government is prescribed under Section 27(2)(d) of the RTI Act, as unamended, which states as under: - “27. Power to make rules by appropriate Government.— (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:— (a) to (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) the salaries and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of the officers and other employees under sub-section (6) of Section 13 and sub-section (6) of Section 16; (e) and (f) xxx xxx xxx” 26. However, the State Government in exercise of the rule making authority under Section 27(2)(d) of the RTI Act has not framed any rule till date or till the petitioner retired from the post. However, the State Government in exercise of the rule making authority under Section 27(2)(d) of the RTI Act has not framed any rule till date or till the petitioner retired from the post. As such, as on the date of retirement of the petitioner, there were no statutory rules governing terms and conditions of service under sub-section (6) of Section 13 and sub-section (6) of Section 16 of the RTI Act for State Information Commissioner. 27. In the instant case also, the petitioner herein, who was a learned member of Bar (Advocate), was appointed on the post of State Information Commissioner for a period of five years (22-9-2008 to 22-9-2013), he was not having pensionable service on the date of his appointment as SIC and he was paid salary & allowances at par with the Chief Secretary of the State during his tenure as SIC and he has no right to pension. It was periodic appointment only for five years and it was also not a whole time service. The petitioner has apparently failed to establish that he has legal right to superannuation pension by virtue of Section 16(5) of the RTI Act as unamended on demitting office as SIC. Decisions of other High Courts on the issue: - 28. A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Shristidhar Mahato v. The State of Jharkhand and others, L.P.A.No.407/2023, decided on 1-12-2023 has considered the issue and held that the writ petitioner therein was not working on any pensionable service on the date of his appointment as State Information Commissioner and in that context, it was further held that the writ petitioner therein was not entitled for pensionary benefits. It has also been held that the provision contained in Section 27(2)(d) read with unamended provision of Section 16(5) of the RTI Act is only confined to the salary and allowances and observed as under: - “25. Further argument has been advanced that since the post of State Information Commissioner is held to be at par with the post of Chief Secretary of the State as such similar benefit including pension is to be extended to the holder of the post of State Information Commissioner but according to our considered view based upon the provision of Section 27 read with un-amended provision of Section 16(5) it is only confined to the salary and allowances.” 29. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Shri Prashant S.P. Tendolkar (supra) while considering the issue has held that since the petitioner (therein) was discharging duties as Additional President of Goa State Administrative Tribunal, South District and was in receipt of pension when he was appointed as the State Chief Information Commissioner, he would be entitled to receive additional pensionary benefit in terms of the Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1958. 30. In the matter of Muni Ram Ranga v. State of Haryana, CWP No.351 of 2015 (O&M), decided on 17-1-2017, a Single Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that assuming that the rules applicable to the Chief Secretary of the State Government are applicable to the State Information Commissioner, then also, in absence of completing minimum qualifying regular service, which is ten years and which the petitioner (therein) had only worked for five years, he would not be entitled for pension. 31. Other decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in Shardul Singh’s case (supra), Kailash Nath’s case (supra), S. Somanathan Pillai (supra), Wing Commander G B Athri (Retd.) (supra), Robert Hrangdawla, IAS and SCIC (Rtd.) (supra), Sri Nyodek Yonggam (supra), H.N. Krishna (supra) and The State of Karnataka (Division Bench) (supra), are clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present case in light of the legal analysis held herein-above, as none of these judgments lays down in principle that SIC being a member of Bar is entitled for superannuation pension on demitting office as SIC. Conclusion: - 32. Thus, from the aforesaid legal analysis, it is quite vivid that pension is a reward for past service, it is determined on the basis of length of service / qualifying period and last pay drawn, and length of service is determinative of eligibility and quantum of pension. Right to pension is a constitutional right and it must be established that the concerned person is entitled to pension under a particular rule or scheme as the case may be. Section 16(5) of the RTI Act (unamended) only provides for the salaries and allowances to the State Information Commissioner at par with the Chief Secretary to the State Government. Right to pension is a constitutional right and it must be established that the concerned person is entitled to pension under a particular rule or scheme as the case may be. Section 16(5) of the RTI Act (unamended) only provides for the salaries and allowances to the State Information Commissioner at par with the Chief Secretary to the State Government. Pension of the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, who was earlier working on a civil post and getting pension under the said civil post on which he was earlier working on the date of his appointment as SCIC or SIC, has been saved and protected by the first proviso to Section 16(5) of the RTI Act (unamended) and service rules applicable to the Chief Secretary to the State Government, which is pensionable service, are not applicable in case of State Information Commissioner who was not holding civil post at the time of his appointment as State Information Commissioner. Even assuming for the purpose of pension that it is held to be applicable, then also the petitioner herein has even not completed the minimum qualifying regular service applicable to Chief Secretary of a State as prescribed in the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 as his appointment was periodical, it was only for five years and a part-time one, and it was not whole-time job. 33. In view of the legal analysis made herein-above, the petitioner would not be entitled for any pension, more particularly, as per own showing of the petitioner, rules regarding the salaries and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of the officers and other employees under sub-section (6) of Section 13 and sub-section (6) of Section 16 of the RTI Act as stipulated under Section 27(d) of the RTI Act have not been notified by the appropriate Government. 34. Concludingly, it is held that a State Information Commissioner (member of Bar), despite receiving salary and allowances equivalent to a Chief Secretary during his tenure, is not eligible to receive superannuation pension / benefits alike those of a Chief Secretary of the State. The role of a State Information Commissioner, while important, does not align with the traditional criteria for superannuation pension eligibility. The tenure is typically short being periodical, and the individual may not have dedicated his entire professional life to public service. The role of a State Information Commissioner, while important, does not align with the traditional criteria for superannuation pension eligibility. The tenure is typically short being periodical, and the individual may not have dedicated his entire professional life to public service. Therefore, holding that the petitioner is entitled to superannuation benefits on completion of his periodic appointment would not only be inconsistent with the objectives of the pension system but would also place an undue burden on the State exchequer. As such, salary and allowances of the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner (non-Government) are limited to the period of their service. Post-retirement benefits, particularly superannuation pension, are not intended to be included within the scope of these service conditions. This distinction is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the pension system and ensuring that it serves its intended purpose of supporting those who have made significant contributions to public service and have crossed public service as per applicable rules. As such, the petitioner has demonstrably failed to establish that he has right to pension after completion of his tenure of appointment as SIC under Section 16(5) of the RTI Act (unamended) and thus, he is not entitled for the relief of pension. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).