ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (henceforth referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Application No. 6308/2010.

2. The application filed before the Tribunal discloses that the petitioner was a District and Sessions Judge, who attained the age of Superannuation on 30.04.1996 and was drawing pension of a sum of Rs. 4,893/- per month. The petitioner was appointed as the President of II Additional District Forum, Bengaluru Urban on full time basis in terms of a notification dated 07.10.1996. The appointment of the petitioner came to an end on 07.04.2001. The petitioner claimed that respondent No. 2 issued a pay slip authorizing to draw a sum of Rs. 12,607/- less Rs. 3,939.91 towards the pension and Pension equivalent to Gratuity (PEG) from 14.10.1996 till 07.04.2001 and accordingly, net amount of Rs. 8,667/- was drawn by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 thereafter issued a revised pay slip dated 25.05.1997 authorizing to draw the pay and other allowance less pension of Rs. 3,939.91. Again on 16.09.1999, respondent No. 2 issued a revised pay slip authorizing the petitioner to draw the pay and other allowances less pension and PEG of Rs. 3,940/-. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 15.07.2010 requesting to release the withheld pension and PEG amount. The petitioner claimed that respondent No. 3 withheld the pension and PEG amount of Rs. 9,939.91/- per month, leaving a balance pension of Rs. 1,826/- and Rs. 2,291/- per month commencing from June 1997 till November 2001 amounting to a sum of Rs. 1,28,378/-. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation to respondent No. 3 on 17.07.2010. The petitioner was not satisfied with the monthly salary fixed by respondent No. 2 and thus, submitted a representation to respondent No. 1 on 12.11.1999 seeking clarification as well as to issue a revised pay slip. Respondent No. 2 issued an endorsement dated 20.12.1999, which read as follows:

“With reference to the above, I am to state that the recovery shown by this Officer from the reemployed salary in the pay slip issued from time to time is in order and it is in accordance with Rule 313 (b)(1) of the KCSR’s. This is for your information.”

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid endorsement, the petitioner challenged the same before the Tribunal.

4. The petitioner claimed before the Tribunal that he was not reemployed under Rule 313 (b)(1) of the KCSR and further relied upon Rule 303 (b) of the KCSR and contended that the order of appointment did not contain any stipulation that his appointment was governed under Rule 303 (b) of the KCSR. He further contended that the salary payable to the President and members of the District forum is governed under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Consumer Protection Rule, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KCPR’ for short) which provided that the President of the District Forum shall receive the salary of the District Judge if appointed on whole time basis. He contended that the salary drawn by a District Judge as on 14.10.1996 was a sum of Rs. 16,750/- per month as per the fitment table III of the Government Order with effect from 01.07.1996. He also contended that the pay scale of a District Judge stood revised vide Government Order dated 07.05.2003 but the respondent No. 2 failed to take into consideration the Government Order dated 07.05.2003 so as to re-fix the salary of the petitioner as the President of the II Additional District Consumer Forum from 14.10.1996 till 07.04.2001 at a sum of Rs. 16,750/- per month with effect from 01.07.1996 and also at Rs.18,750/- per month till his date of retirement. The petitioner therefore contended that he had a short drawn his salary from 14.10.1996 till 07.04.2001.

5. The Tribunal considered the question regarding the entitlement of the petitioner to the pension and relied upon Rule 313 (b)(1) of the KCSR and held that “A perusal of the Rule makes it clear that pay o