VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The pension amount received by the appellants in respect of their previous services as (Retired) District Judge can be deducted from the salary of the President of the District Consumer Forum, fixed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the Rules framed thereunder read with Punjab Civil Service Rules. Hence Govt. order dated 25-1-1996 directing such deduction of pension is valid.

Headnote:Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II-Section 2.1 of Chapter II read with Section 7.18 and Note 3(a)(i) of Ch. VII-Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 9 and 10-Consumer Protection (Punjab) Rules, 1987-Rule 3-Retired District Judge re-employed as President of District Consumer Forum-Whether Pension receivable by him is deductible from salary of the President of the District Consumer Forum? (Yes)-Appeal dismissed.
Held : The appointment of a District Judge, after his superannuation as the President of the District Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, cannot but be held to be a case of re-employment of a pensioner inasmuch as the said District Judge is in receipt of a pension for the services rendered as a District Judge in accordance with the provisions contained in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. Since Section 2.1 of Chapter II of Volume II, unequivocally states that even pension shall be held to have been granted subject to the conditions contained in Chapter VII and Chapter VII contains Rule STC (Section)7.18 as well as Note 3(a)(i), which have been extracted before, the conclusion is irresistible that the appropriate authority will have to decide the pay and allowances, which the retired District Judge is entitled to receive on being appointed as the President of die District Forum notwithstanding the fixation of such pay under the Rules framed under Consumer Protection Act and while fixing the same, the principle underlined in Note 3(a)(i) has to be followed. This being the position, we see no infirmity with the Government Order dated 25th of January, 1996 and under the said notification die salary of re-employed District Judges as President of the District Consumer Forum, have rightly been fixed; taking into account the pension, which they are in receipt of, as retired District Judges. The contention of Mr. Rao that the salary fixed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder is being altered by an administrative order is of no force, in view of the legal provisions enumerated above and in fact it is the provision the Punjab Civil Services Rules, dealing with the salary of re-employed pensioners, which governs the field. The other contention on the basis of the judgment of this Court in D.S. Nakara, that pension is not a bounty is also of no consequence, hi the aforesaid premises, we do not find any legal infirmity with the Judgment of the High Court, requiring our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. These appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-These appeals filed by the Presidents of the District Consumer Forum, appointed under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, are directed against the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court and the question for consideration is whether the pension amount received by these appellants in respect of their previous services as District Judges, can be deducted from the salary of the President of me District Consumer Forum, fixed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the rules framed there under? The appellants approached the High Court by filing a writ petition, challenging the legality of the Government Order dated 25th of January, 1996, by which order it had been directed that the pension amount of each of these appellants should be deducted from their salary, payable as President of the District Consumer Forum. The High Court by the impugned judgment, dismissed the writ petition, essentially on the ground that the appellants knew while joining the post of President, District Consumer Forum that the pension amount received by them as Members of the Superior Judicial Service would be deducted from their salary and, therefore, they having joined the post with full knowledge and without any protest, they do not have any enforceable right under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, as contended.

2. Mr. P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, raised the following contentions in assailing the impugned judgment of the High Court:

(1) The salary of the President of the District Consumer Forum, having been fixed under Section 10(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) read with Rule 3(1) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) and there being no provision for deduction of the pension, which such President had been drawing in respect of the past services rendered, the Government is not entitled to issue an Administrative Order to that effect and, therefore, the Order directing deduction of pension is illegal.

(2) Pension being neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer, as has been held by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision in D.S. Nakara s case, the right to receive pension by each of the appellants, is a statutory right governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules, made under the proviso to Article 309, and in the absence of any provision thereunder, the said pension cannot be deducted from the salary provided for the President of the District Consumer Forum under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

(3) In any view of the matter, the statutory right of receiving pension for services rendered as District Judges, cannot be taken away by an administrative order made by the Governor.

(4) The Consumer Protection Act and the Rules framed thereunder, itself having provided the conditions of service and basing fixed the salary of the President of the District Consumer Forum, the same cannot be, in any manner altered by an administrative order.

In this view of the matter, the impugned Order dated 25.1.1996, is on the face of it illegal, inoperative and null and void and must be struck down. Mr. Rao also further contended that the conclusion of the High Court, applying the principle of waiver and estoppel is wholly untenable, since there is no question of waiver or estoppel against any statute and the High Court committed error in holding that the appellants knew about the condition that the pension amount would be deducted from the salary/honorarium payable to the President of the District Consumer Forum.

3. Mr. A.G. Chaudhary, appearing for the State of Punjab, on the other hand contended that Volume II of the Punjab Civil Services Rules deal with the pension of an employee. In Chapter VII of the aforesaid Punjab Civil Services Rules of Volume II, Clause 7.18 enable

Click Here to Read the rest of this document