An interested person is not entitled to file a public interest litigation, the Supreme Court has said while dismissing a plea against an order of the Karnataka high court which had rejected a petition on the issue related to pension to state information commissioners.
The apex court noted that the petitioner, who had approached the high court challenging the January 2013 office memorandum issued by the state under which a provision was made to grant pension to the state information commissioners equivalent to the pension payable to the chief secretary, was also an aspirant to the post.
“Since the petitioner was also an aspirant to the post of the state information commissioner and has made an application seeking such employment as recorded in the judgment and order of the high court impugned, we are of the view that the high court has rightly declined to entertain the writ petition filed by him purportedly in public interest,” a bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and J K Maheshwari said.
“It is well settled that an interested person is not entitled to file a public interest litigation. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed,” the bench said in its October 1 order.
The top court was hearing a plea filed by a man against the July this year order of the high court which had dismissed his petition.
The petitioner before the high court had argued that there was no provision to extend pensionary benefits to state information commissioners appointed under the Right to Information Act 2005.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner had told the high court that only if a person was holding a pensionable post before his or her appointment as state information commissioner, they were was entitled to pension.
The high court had noted that the January 2013 order specifically recorded that state information commissioners will be entitled to pension payable to the chief secretary, subject to deduction of pension already received for their past service.
During the adjudication of the matter before the high court, the state had pointed out that the petitioner was an aspirant to the post of state information commissioner and he had made an application seeking appointment, which was rejected as he was not found to be suitable.
