Cuttack: Orissa high court rejected the pension claim of former information commissioner Jagadananda citing that there are no rules explicitly recognising the entitlement of a State Information Commissioner to receive a pension. The single judge bench of Justice S K Panigrahi said, “Pensionary benefits are governed by established statutory frameworks, which provide clarity on eligibility and entitlement. In the absence of statutory provisions, judicial intervention cannot create a right where none exists.”
“The courts must respect the legislative and executive domains and refrain from making policy decisions that are within the purview of the state. The role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law, not to legislate or mandate benefits that have not been statutorily prescribed,” Justice Panigrahi opined in the Nov 8 order, a copy of which was officially released Wednesday. Jagadananda assumed office as State Information Commissioner on Aug 7, 2008, and was permitted to relinquish office on completion of the prescribed tenure of five years on Aug 6, 2013. The state govt dismissed his claim for post-retirement benefits on July 22, 2020.
However, Justice Panigrahi noted, “The pPetitioner (Jagadananda) himself participated in meetings where the recommendation was made to urge the state govt to establish rules for the provision of post-retirement benefits to State Information Commissioners. Given that the petitioner was fully aware of the terms of his service both at the time of his appointment and when he retired, he cannot now claim entitlement to pension benefits, particularly when such benefits were never extended to his post during his tenure.” Justice Panigrahi further opined: “The court’s intervention in granting pension benefits where none exists under the applicable rules would set a dangerous precedent, potentially encouraging similar claims and placing an undue burden on the state exchequer. Such an approach could lead to arbitrary and unsustainable financial obligations, undermining the principle that pension entitlements must be rooted in law and based on clear statutory provisions.”
Additionally, granting pension benefits to an individual who served for a mere five years would create inequitable disparities, as pension schemes are typically designed to reward long-term service, ensuring fairness and fiscal responsibility in public finance management, Justice Panigrahi added.