The Bombay High Court at Goa delivered its judgment on the writ petition filed by Shri Prashant S. P. Tendolkar, a retired Chief Information Commissioner of Goa. The petitioner sought various post-retirement benefits, including arrears of salary, pension, gratuity, and reimbursement for domestic help, as per the provisions and amendments related to the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958. The court examined whether these benefits extended to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and corresponding legislation. The respondents argued against the inclusion of pensionary benefits, contending that the statutory provisions did not support such claims. The court's analysis revolved around interpreting the statutory language and its applicability to the petitioner's situation.

1. Introduction

The petitioner, Shri Prashant S. P. Tendolkar, a retired Chief Information Commissioner of Goa, invoked the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court at Goa under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought various reliefs including the payment of arrears, pension, gratuity, and reimbursement for domestic help.

2. Background

• The petitioner was appointed as the State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) on January 1, 2016.
• The terms and conditions of his service were governed by the Right to Information Act, 2005, which aligned his benefits with those of an Election Commissioner, further linked to the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958.

3. Petitioner's Claims

• Arrears of Salary and Allowances: The petitioner claimed arrears based on amendments made in 2018 to the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act.
• Pension and Gratuity: The petitioner argued for entitlement to pension and gratuity benefits post-retirement, which was contested by the respondents.
• Reimbursement for Domestic Help: Citing the Supreme Court's notification, the petitioner sought reimbursement for domestic help.

4. Respondents' Arguments

• The respondents contended that the petitioner was not entitled to pensionary benefits under the governing statutes.
• They argued that the terms "salaries and allowances" in the RTI Act did not include post-retirement benefits like pension or gratuity.
• The respondents referenced similar cases and statutory interpretations to support their position.

5. Court's Analysis

• The court examined the statutory provisions, particularly the RTI Act and its linkage to the Election Commission and Supreme Court Judges Acts.
• It considered whether the statutory language extended pensionary benefits to the petitioner and whether the petitioner’s service conditions included such post-retirement entitlements.

6. Judgment

• The court ruled on the interpretation of the relevant statutes concerning the petitioner's entitlement to the claimed benefits.
• It addressed each relief sought by the petitioner, providing clarity on the extent of benefits legally due under the applicable laws.

7. Conclusion

The judgment underscored the importance of precise statutory interpretation in determining the rights and benefits of public officials post-retirement. The case highlighted the complexities involved in aligning various legislative frameworks to address the claims of retired officials.