Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39938-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 219 of 2025 Appellant :- U.P. State Information Commission Thru. Its Secy. And 2 Others Respondent :- Archana Verma And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shikhar Anand Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Karan,C.S.C. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Order on C.M. Application No.1 of 2025 (Application for Condonation of Delay) 1. This intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.02.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 1860 of 2025. 2. Time was granted for filing objections to the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner, however, no objection has been filed in response to the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay. 3. Reasons in detail have been spelt out in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application. 4. In absence of any objection and the cause shown being sufficient, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Order on Appeal 1. Sri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that unless the appointment of the petitioner's husband was made in accordance with rules, the benefit of The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 cannot be claimed by her. 2. The submission advanced before this Court is attractive, however, the same requires consideration within the ambit of statutory provisions envisaged under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 3. Section 16(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which is mightily relevant, for ready reference, is extracted below:- "16. Term of office and conditions of service- (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." 4. The rule making power of the State is also postulated under section 27(2)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the same being relevant, is also reproduced here-in-under :- "27. Power to make rules by appropriate government- (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act. 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) ... ... ... .... .... (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. ... " 5. A conjunctive study of the provisions extracted above clearly shows that the obligation of making the officers and employees available to the State Information Commission, rests upon the State Government. The State Government does not appear to have discharged it's obligation nor any rules have been framed for making the State Information Commission a permanent establishment. 6. It is however noticed that some correspondence took place between the State Government and the State Information Commission in the year 2006, i.e. at the initial stage, when some posts of Officers and Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts, came to be sanctioned. 7. After sanction of the posts in various categories, a further government order was issued on 29.11.2006, which provides for the sources of recruitment. The State Information Commission in cooperation with the State Government does not appear to have undertaken any regular process of selection. Consequently, it was left open to the State Information Commission to make appointments by following the requisite procedure of selection applicable to the respective categories of government employees. 8. The State Information Commission appears to have recruited as many as 43 employees in the year 2007, whereas as many as 13 employees have been appointed on contractual basis in the years 2007 & 2008. In the year 2006, the State Government brought all the Group 'C' posts meant for direct recruitment outside the purview of Subordinate Service Selection Commission, however, in the year 2014, the State Government has brought back all such posts within the purview of Subordinate Service Selection Commission. 9. In the year 2020, taking into account the existing strength of working staff appointed temporarily, the State Information Commission wrote to the State Government on 19.10.2020 for framing the Service Rules. The details regarding the contractual appointment of 13 employees were also forwarded to the State Government. The State Government has failed to frame the Service Rules with respect to the temporary servants working in the State Information Commission and no scheme for regularization of the contractual employees appears to have been framed. 10. It is informed to the Court that the State Government on the contrary has required the State Information Commission to forward the requisition for direct recruitment to the Subordinate Services Selection Commission, which, of course, does not have any bearing upon the claim set-up by the present respondent before the writ court. 11. The question, which has cropped up, is as to whether the temporary employee namely, Sri Manoj Kumar, who was appointed as Driver on 01.02.2007 was a Government Servant and if so, as to whether upon his death, while in service, his legal heirs would be entitled to claim the benefits of The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974?. 12. The argument when tested in the light of statutory provisions applicable to the employees of the State Information Commission, it is clear that the obligation of providing the Officers and staff rests upon the State Government and any officer or staff appointed in the office of State Information Commission by the government or as permitted by the government, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated to be a non-government employee. 13. Once all the employees duly appointed in the State Information Commission discharge their duties within the scope of provisions extracted above, it cannot be said that the State Information Commission was estopped to adopt the provisions of Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 for extending the benefit to a legal heir of any deceased employee having status of a temporary government servant. 14. It is not in dispute that the husband of the respondent was working as a temporary employee on the post of Driver and his name finds mention at Sl. No. 2 of the list of temporary employees. 15. The writ court having regard to all these aspects of the matter, has considered the rival submissions for taking a view, which in our humble consideration, does not call for any interference in exercise of appellate power of this court. 16. The appeal filed by the appellants, being devoid of merits, is rejected accordingly. . (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 14.7.2025 AKS Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench