KOKJE, ACTG. CJ. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against an order passed by learned Single Judge allowing a petition by a person Services appointed as President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short "district Forum") while in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services (for short RHJS) claiming continuation on the post even after retirement from Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS) on the same salary and allowances as were being drawn by him before retirement from RHJS. The respondent- petitioner complained that on his retirement his emoluments were reduced in violation of the rule which provides that the conditions of service of a member of the District Forum shall not be altered to his detriment. The learned Single Judge decided the case following another Single Bench decision of Jaipur Bench in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3140/96 decided o n 4. 4. 97, S. S. Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan (1 ).
(2.) THE appellant State has filed this appeal challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The respondent-petitioner who was a member of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service was appointed President of the District Forum while in service by an order dated 2. 6. 94. He joined his duties on 15. 7. 94. The age of superannuation for RHJS Officers was 60 years and the respondent petitioner completed that in the month of January, 1995 and hence retired on 31. 1. 95. The tenure of the post of President, District Forum is till the incumbent completes the age of 65 years or 5 years from the date of appointment whichever is earlier. Accordingly, the respondent-petitioner conti- nued in the post of President, District Forum even after his superannuation from RHJS. The respondent petitioner continued to draw the salary to which he was entitled in RHJS on his appointment as President,district Forum. He continued to do so till reaching the age of superannuation in the RHJS. Thereafter, it appears, the confusion arose as to what would be the nature of his appointment after super- annuation from RHJS and what would be the salary payable to him. The respondent-petitioner himself wrote to the State Govt. on 18. 1. 95 asking for a decision on the point of his continuation in the post. On 7. 3. 95 the State Govt. took a decision relieving the respondent-petitioner from the post on the ground that he was appointed as a serving judicial officer and since he had retired from his original service the State Govt. was not inclined to continue him in the post for administrative reasons. The respondent-petitioner accordingly laid down office on 20. 3. 95. This order was subsequently withdrawn on 20. 10. 95 and it was declared that the respondent- petitioner would continue till completion of 5 years from the date of initial appointment or till reaching 65 years' of age. It was also ordered that the sa- lary for the period from 1. 2. 95 i. e. after superannuation from RHJS would be governed by Rule 337 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The respondent-petitioner rejoined his duties on 9. 11. 95 and on 10. 11. 95 again wrote to the State Govt. asking for determination of the salary and allowances with reference to Rule 3 (6) of the Rajasthan Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. On 27. 12. 95 the respondent-petitioner again sent a detailed representation claiming protection of salary under Rule 3 (6) of the Rajasthan Consumer Protection Rules 1987 and claiming payment of salary for the period of discontinuation of appointment. On 27. 2. 96 the respondent-petitioner was told by the State Government that it was not possible to pay him salary for the period he did not ac- tually work and by order dated 30. 5. 96 the Govt. fixed his salary at Rs 3553/- deducting his pension amount 3147/- from the last pay of Rs. 6700/ -. It was also specified that no dearness relief or city compensatory allowance would be payable on the pension and dearness and city compensatory allowance would be payable on last pay of Rs. 6700/- It was also specified that deduction for occupying Govern- ment house would be on the basis of Rs. 6700/- as pay and office maintenance allowance, convenience allowance and other allowance would not be payable. On 14. 6. 96 the order dated 30. 5. 96 was amended substituting the words "interim relief" in place of words "city Compensatory allowance. " The respondent-petitioner challenged the aforesaid fixation of pay by fil- ing a petition before the learned Single Judge. The respondent-petitioner contended that since the order discontinuing his appointment was withdrawn he was entitled to emoluments for the entire period even though he had not factually worked on the post. It was further contended that the appointment to the post of President, District Forum under the Act was for a period of 5 years of till the person appointed attains the age of 65 years and therefore, according to the respondent- petitioner a person who was appointed to the post while in service in the RHJS could not be deemed to have vacated the post on his superannuation from RHJS. It was further contended that since the emoluments once fixed cannot be reduced by virtue of Rule 3 (6) of the Rajasthan Consumer Protection Rules. The salary of the District Judge which was being drawn by the respondent-petitioner as President of District Forum before his retirement from RHJS could not be reduced by application of Rule 337 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. It was further contended that respondent's case was not a case of re-employment as the order of discontinuation was withdrawn resulting in continuation of the appointment and also for the reason that re-employment is prohibited under the Act and the Rules. The contention of the appellant-State is that the respondent is not entitled to double benefit and is not entitled to get the salary of a District Judge over and above the pension amount he was receiving. It is also submitted that the respondent was not entitled to payment of salary for the period for which he has not worked.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge has decided the case relying on a Single Bench decision of Jaipur Bench in S. S. Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan (supra ). In that case the learned Single Judge held that the President of the District Forum after retirement from the RHJS shall be entitled to full salary and allowance as a District Judge in addition to the pension earned by him on superannuation from RHJS. Having heard the learned counsel and having gone through the decision in S. S. Gupta's case (Supra) we do not find ourselves able to reconcile with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Gupta's Case. The eligibility qualifications and the salary to be paid to the President of the District Forum is governed by Sec- tion 10 of the Act which reads as under:- Sec. 10. Composition of the District Forum: (1) Each District Forum shall consist;- (a) a person who is or has been or is qualified to be a District Judge to be nominated by the State Govt. , to be its President; (b) a person of eminence in the field of education, trade or commerce; (c) a lady social worker; (2) Every member of the District Forum shall hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of 65 years whichever is earlier, and shall not be eligible for re- employment; Provided that a member may resign his office in writing under his hand addressed to the State Govt. and on such registration being accepted, his office shall become vacant and may be filled by the appointment of a person possessing any of the qualifications mentio- ned in sub-section (1) in relation to the category of the member who has resigned. (3) The salary or honorarium and other allowances payable to, and the other terms and conditions of service of the members of the District Forum shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Govt. It is therefore clear that a person who is or has been or is qualified to be a District Judge can be nominated as the President of the District Forum. The term of appointment is 5 years or up to reaching the age of 65 years whichever is earlier and no reappointment of the same person is possible. Salary, honorarium or other allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of the members of the Dis- trict Forum are to be prescribed by the State Govt. In exercise of the aforesaid Rule making power the State Govt. of Rajasthan has framed Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Consumer Protection Rules 1987. The relevant portion of the Rule is reproduced hereunder:- "rule 3 (1):- The President of the District Forum shall receive the salary of the Judge of a District Court if appointed on part-time basis or an honorarium of Rs. 150 per day if appointed on whole-time basis. Other members if sitting on whole time basis shall receive a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 2000 per month and if sitting on part-time basis, a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 100 per day for the sitting. . . . . . . . . . . . Rule 3 (3) :- The salary, honorarium and other allowances shall be defrayed out of the consolidated fund of the State Govt. . . . . Rule 3 (6):- The terms and conditions of the service of the President and the members of the District Forum shall not be varied to their disadvantage during their tenure of office. . . . . . . . " ;