MEENA, J. - (1.) SINCE this appeal and two writ petitions are inter-connected, we heard and dispose of them by this common order.
(2.) THIS reference has been made to the Larger Bench by the Division Bench vide order dated 22. 3. 2001 in the case State of Raj. vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta (1) and Surendra Singh vs. State of Raj. & Ors. In both cases similar issues have been raised. One more case has been tagged i. e. RHJS Officers Association & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan Following questions are referred to this Larger Bench:- 1. Whether President, consumer Forum gets salary of a District Judge? 2. If a person already in service is appointed as President, Consumer Forum, he will continue to get the same salary till he reaches the age of superannuation provided under the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules? 3. After date of retirement from the Higher Judicial Services, if the person still continues as President of the Consumer forum to complete the tenure provided under the Act, whether he will continue to get the same salary last drawn by him or usual salary of a District Judge plus the pension for which he was otherwise entitled for after his due retirement as member of Higher Judicial Services? 4. During the tenure as President of Consumer Forum whether a person can be treated as member of Higher Judicial Services even after he reaches the age of superannuation so as to entitle him to all the benefits of services for the remaining period of his tenure as President, Consumer Forum? (5) Whether there can be any re-employment of President, Consumer Forum during the fixed tenure, if the person appointed as President while in service, after his retirement from the services? (6) What is the status of a member of RHJS who is appointed as President. District Forum while in the RHJS and continuing as such after his superannuation in the RHJS? (7) whether aforesaid appointment of a member of RHJS at any stage can be reckoned as "re-employment" or whether it is to be held as "statutory appointment"? The facts in case of Shyam Sunder Gupta are that Shyam Sunder Gupta was appointed as President of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sikar vide order dated 2. 6. 1994 by the Food and Civil Supply Department Government of Rajasthan under the provisions of Sec. 10 (1) of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as, `the Act, 1986'. The petitioner was relieved by the Rajasthan High Court vide its order dated 18. 6. 1994 to join his new place of posting as President of the District Consumer Forum, Sikar. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner joined on the said post on 18. 6. 1994. since then the petitioner had been working continuously on the said post till filing of the writ petition. The appointment as President of the District Consumer Forum was for a term of five years of upto the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. The petitioner had completed his age of superannuation in RHJS i. e. 60 years, as a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services on 31. 5. 1995. The Government of Rajasthan sanctioned gross pension as Rs. 3,050/- and net pension as Rs. 2,034/- vide order dated 19. 2. 1996. As the petitioner has retired on 31. 5. 1995 from RHJS and he became eligible to get pension of a retired judicial officer, the petitioner claimed that he should be allowed to get District Judges salary plus pension which he was getting on his superannuation from RHJS on 31. 5. 1995. In order dated 19. 2. 1996, the Government has ordered that Shyam Sunder Gupta will continue to act as President of the Consumer Forum but as he retired from the RHJS on 1. 6. 1995, therefore, thereafter he will get the salary as per Rule 337 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and vide order dated 14. 6. 1996 (Annex. 5) it is made clear that he will get the salary of District Judge which he was getting on the date of retirement minus the amount of pension and he will get the medical facilities only which is permissible to the retired persons. He will also not get the office maintenance allowance. Both the orders were challenged by Shri Shyam Sunder Gupta claiming that once he was appointed as President of the District Forum while he was in RHJS, his facilities and perks and pay cannot be reduced or put him in disadvantageous position then he had a status and position while he was in Rajasthan higher Judicial Service till his retirement from the Consumer Forum. The case of Shri Surendra Singh was that the petitioner was a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services in the year 1994 and posted as Judge, Family Court, Kota. At that time he was offered the post of President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The Government vide order dated 2. 6. 1994 has appointed him as President of Consumer Forum. He joined on that post on 4. 7. 1994. The petitioner retired from RHJS on 30. 6. 1996 but continued to draw the salary and allowances which he was drawing before retirement in addition to the pension which he got on his superannuation from RHJS. On 23. 8. 1996, the respondent issued an order asking him to draw the salary in accordance with Rule 337 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The petitioner Claimed that wen the petitioner had not been re-appointed on his retirement from RHJS, the provision of Rule 337 of Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951 had no application. The petitioner also claimed benefit of Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1998 on the basis that when the petitioner had not retired prior to 30. 6. 1996, he should get the benefit of Revised Pay Scale Rules, which are revised after his retirement from the RHJS but before the retired from District Consumer Forum. The prayer of Shri Singh had been rejected. He challenged that order and claimed that as his case is not of re-employment and he continued in District Consumer Forum on the date of revised rules made effective, he is entitled for Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1998.
(3.) THE petitioner challenged the order dated 22. 7. 1998 (Annex. 7) and order dated 22. 7. 1998 (Annex. 8), whereby the earlier fixation order has been cancelled taking the view that after retirement from RHJS, the Petitioner cannot get the benefit of Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1998. THE Petitioner claimed that even after retirement from RHJS, he be treated in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service having the same benefit as available to the RHJS as he joined the Forum while he was in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services. The third writ petition has been filed by the RHJS Officers Association. In this writ petition, the petitioners are officers of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Association; Jagpal Singh, RHJS Officers claimed that if any Judicial Officer from Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service joined the Consumer Forum while in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and if he retired during the tenure of Consumer Forum, he should have the same benefit till his retirement from the Consumer Forum as are available to the members of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service even though he retired from RHJS during the tenure of President of District Consumer Forum. The petitioners Jagpal singh and Usman Ali Khan also have the same case. They were appointed as President of Consumer Forum wile they were member of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service for 5 years or 65 years, whichever is earlier. Before completion of the tenure as President of the District Consumer Forum, they are superannuated from the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services and got all the retiral benefits but claimed that till their retirement as President, District Consumer Forum, they are entitled for all the benefits which are available to the member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services. ;