G.B. 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 the District Consumer Forum, fixed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the rules framed thereunder ? 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 having 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 enables the authority competent to fix the pay and allowances of the post in