S. Muralidhar, J.

These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 11th May, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the Appellants as regards the interpretation of the expression "last pay drawn" found in the proviso to both Rule 3(1) (b) and Rule 6 (1) (b) of the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 (hereafter "the Rules").

Issue involved

2. Each of the Appellants was a member of either the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("SCDRC") or the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ("DCDRF") in Delhi. These appeals essentially involve a question of law concerning the interpretation of the above expression in the proviso to both Rule 3 (1) (b) (insofar as it relates to Members of the DCDRF) and Rule 6 (1) (b) of the Rules (insofar as it relates to Members of the SCDRC).

Facts in LPA 322 of 2018

3. Inasmuch as a common question is involved in each appeal, the facts in each of them need not be discussed. Illustratively, the facts of one of the cases, LPA 322 of 2018, are set out hereafter.

4. The Appellant in LPA No.322 of 2018, Shri Narinder Paul Kaushik, superannuated from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service on 30th April, 2013. At the time of his retirement he was on deputation as the Presiding Officer of the Delhi School Tribunal ("DST'). On 20th June, 2013 the Department of Food, Supply and Consumer Affairs, Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) issued an advertisement for the post of Member (Judicial) of the DSCDRC. On 11th October, 2013 an offer was made to Shri Kaushik for the post of Member (Judicial) in the DSCDRC. He accepted the offer and joined that post on 19th November, 2013. In terms of the offer of appointment, Shri Kaushik was required to exercise an option to receive a consolidated salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month or "last pay drawn minus pension. On 16th December, 2013 Shri Kaushik exercised the option of receiving the salary on the basis of "last pay drawn minus pension".

5. The question as to what constituted "last pay drawn" as occurring in the proviso to Rule 6 (1) (b) of the Rules was referred to the Law Department of the GNCTD on 26th June 2014. On 7th July, 2014 Shri Kaushik received a letter from the Department of Food, Supply and Consumer Affairs (Respondent No.2) that the Finance (Accounts Department) of the GNCTD had opined that he was not entitled to allowances of any type. On 11th August, 2014 in terms of the above opinion of the Finance Department, the remuneration payable to Shri Kaushik was fixed by reducing the amount of pension from his last "basic pay". The last basic pay was Rs. 76,450/- and the pension was Rs. 38,225/-. Accordingly, his remuneration was fixed at Rs. 76,450-38,225/- i.e. Rs. 38,225/-.

Orders of this Court

6. Shri Kaushik initially filed WP (C) No. 5270 of 2014 in this Court. This was disposed of by this Court on 20th August, 2014 directing the Respondents to examine his representation dated 24th July, 2014. On 19th January, 2015 the Respondents rejected the representation. On 19th March, 2015 Shri Kaushik filed WP (C) No. 3134 of 2015 in this Court.

7. Shri Kaushik filed CM No. 8968 of 2015 in the said writ petition seeking an early hearing. The said application was dismissed on 18th May, 2015. Shri Kaushik then filed LPA No. 337 of 2015. The said appeal was heard by the Division Bench (DB) on 25th May, 2015. Inter-alia while noting the issues involved in the writ petition, the DB by an interim order passed on that date directed that:

"Pending further consideration in the writ petition, it is directed that the respondents shall calculate the salary which shall be entitled remuneration at the rate of "Last Pay Drawn minus Pension". The last pay drawn would include the dearness allowance component. This payment and its receipt shall be without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions of both parties. The writ court would pass appropriate orders for restitution or payment, if any,