Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner, a retired member of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services (RHJS) has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition with the following prayers: - - "i. the impugned order dated 24.6.99 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii. by a positive direction, the respondents be directed to fix the petitioner in the revised Pay Scale Rules, 1998 in the pay scale of Rs. 18,400 -22,400/ - w.e.f. 1.9.96 and he be given difference of salary from the said date with interest @ 12% p.a. iii. The respondent be further directed to allow annual grade increment to the petitioner which is admissible in the Pay Scale of Rs. 18,400 -22,400/ - and the respondents be further directed to grant him the benefit of dearness allowance as granted by the State Govt. from time to time. iv. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." Succinctly stated the facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was initially selected as a member of Rajasthan Judicial Services (RJS) in the year 1963. He gained promotions from time to time and finally, he was promoted as a member of RHJS. While working as a member of RHJS, the petitioner acquired eligibility for being appointed as President, District Consumer Forum (for short, referred to herein after as 'Forum'). The composition of Forum is provided for in Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act. The petitioner applied for and was selected for being appointed as President of the Forum and thereby became entitled to hold the office for a term of 5 years or upto 65 years, whichever was earlier.
(3.) IT is averred in the writ petition that as the petitioner was appointed on the post of President of Forum while working on the post of RHJS, by the effect of a notification dated 2.6.1994, he was entitled to continue on the post for five years irrespective of the age of superannuation of a RHJS officer. It is further averred that there was some misconception on this issue in the State Government and thus, when the petitioner attained the age of superannuation as a RHJS officer, he was sought to be discontinued from the post of President of Forum vide order dated 7.3.1995. However, the petitioner represented to the respondents that he was entitled to continue on the post of President for a period of 5 years irrespective of the age of superannuation of RHJS officers. Upon receiving the petitioner's representation, the Government realized its mistake and withdrew the order dated 7.3.1995 vide another order Annex. 1 dated 20.10.1995 making it clear that the earlier order would not bring about a break in service and the petitioner shall be entitled to continuity in service.;