Radhakrishnan, J.

The question that has come up for consideration in this batch of cases is whether re-employed pensioner who is regulated by the provisions of Rule 100 Part III of the Kerala Service Rules is entitled to draw pension and dearness relief thereon along with re-employment pay?

2. A Division Bench of this court in State of Kerala v. Govindankutty (1999 (2) KLT 746) held that a District Judge re-employed after retirement as President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum would be governed by the Consumer Protection Act and the Rules and not by Part III of the Kerala Service Rules.

3. The apex court in M.S. Chawla v. State of Punjab (2001 (5) SCC 358) had occasion to consider similar issue and held that a retried District Judge re-appointed as President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum would be governed by the relevant provisions of the Punjab Civil Service Rules and consequently upheld the order by which pension was deducted from the salary of the President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Going by the decision of the apex court, Justice Balakrishnan Nair felt that the decision in Govindankutty’s case, supra requires reconsideration. Learned judge therefore referred the matter to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the following issues:-

(1) Whether the decisions of this court in Govindankutty v. State of Kerala (1996 (2) KLT 1007) and State of Kerala v. Govindankutty (1999) (2) KLT 746) require reconsideration in the light of the decision of the apex court in M.S. Chawla v. State of Punjab (AIR 2001 SC 1706)

(2) Whether the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules.

4. Petitioner in O.P.No.27086 of 2000 was a District Judge coming under the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Rules. While he was serving as M.A.C.T., he was appointed as President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Ernakulam as per notification dated 24.5.1997. Petitioner retired on superannuation as District Judge on 31.5.1998 from the judicial service. Though he retired as District Judge on 31.5.1998 from the judicial service he continued to hold the post of President of the Forum on re-employment.

5. Section 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 enables such persons to continue in the post of President of the Forum for a term of five years or upto the age of sixty five years, whichever is earlier. Government then examined the matter and allowed persons like the petitioner to continue in the post of President of the Forum on re-employment basis. Communication to that effect was sent by the Secretary to Government to the Account General, Kerala by proceedings dated 9.12.1998. Before the petitioner retired as District Judge on 31.5.1998, Government had issued G.O.(P)No.1088/98/Fin dated 23.3.1998 by which re-employed persons were allowed to enjoy the pensionary benefits. The Government felt that there is no justification in denying or withholding or reducing or adjusting pensionary benefits or dearness relief on pension from the pay and allowances of re-employed pensioners since pension is a right earned for past services. Government also ordered that necessary amendments to Rule 100, Part III of the Kerala Service Rules would be issued. Relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

(i) Re-employed pensioners will be given pay and all other allowances attached to the re-employed post. They will also be eligible to get all pensionary benefits including D.R. on pension due to them in full.

(ii) The re-employed pensioners will be allowed the minimum of the scale of pay of the post of retirement or equivalent post or re-employed post (as revised from time to time) or the salary they had drawn at the time of retirement whichever is higher. If the pay drawn at the time of retirement is not a stage in the relevant scale of pay, it will be fixed at the stage immediately below in that scale, the difference being treated as personal pay to be absorbed in future increments. A