The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of a retired District Judge under the Consumer Protection Act entitles them to the salary of a District Judge as per specific provisions, and that pensionary benefits should be separate and independent of post-retirement remuneration.

M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.

In this appeal, the State challenges the judgment passed in O.P.No. 3155/94 allowing the Original Petition filed by the present respondent and declaring that he is eligible to get the benefit of the salary of a judge of the District Court as prescribed under R.3(1) of the Consumer Protection Rules (Kerala) 1987 and also directing disbursement of arrears of salary from the date of his appointment till the date of judgment, and also till his retirement from the particular post on 16.12.96.

2. The respondent herein retired as a District Judge born on the Kerala Higher Judicial Service on 31.3.1987. Thereafter, he was appointed as President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur as per Government Order dated 8.11.91. The question of fixing the salary due to the respondent was considered by the Government in the light of R.100 of Part III K.S.R. which relates to re-employment of pensioners and Ext. P1 order issued on 5.2.92. It was declared that he would be treated as on re-employment on whole time basis and regulated as per the pay fixation norms contained in G.O. (MS) 454/88/Fin., dated 29.6.1988 as amended from time to time.

3. Ext.P1 order aforementioned was challenged by the respondent contending that his appointment is under the Consumer Protection Act and the Rules framed thereunder and that the provisions of R.100 Part III K.S.R. cannot have overriding effect. He, therefore, contended that he is entitled to get the salary due for the post independent of the pension that he has earned for his services under the Kerala Government as a judicial Officer. The said contention of the respondent did not find favour with the Government and the respondent, therefore, sought appropriate writ or other orders from this Court quashing Ext. P1 and granting a declaration with regard to his entitlement as above.

4. The learned single judge who went into the contentions raised by both sides, accepted the respondent's contention that his appointment was not governed by the provisions in Part III K.S.R. relating to re-employment; that the statutory provisions in S.10(3) of the Consumer Protection Act cannot be subject to executive orders like Ext. P1 and that the Government stand denying the full salary as applicable to District Judges to the respondent was unjustified.

5. The aforesaid decision, which is also reported in 1996 (2) KLT 1007, is under challenge herein. It is the contention of the State that the respondent cannot be differentiated from other pensioners and that he is also governed by the provisions in R.100 Part III K.S.R. It is pointed out that similar retired officers who have accepted the appointment of judge of Family Courts are getting only the salary less pension as per R.100 Part III K.S.R.

6. During hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent took us through certain Government Orders issued subsequent to the riling of the Original Petition including G.O.(P) 1088/98 Fin., dated 23.3.98, which is produced as Ext. A5 along with C.M.P. 4073/1998 wherein re-employed pensioners like the present respondent were declared eligible for pay and all other relevant allowances due in the re-employed posts besides all pensionary benefits including D.R. on pension to which they are entitled in full; but only with effect from 1.1.96. The petitioner will not be entitled to the full benefits allowed under the said Government Order because after the coming into effect of the Government Order, he was in service only for a period of about 12 months.

7. The question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the appointment that the respondent held till 16.12.96 as President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum entitled him to get the pay and allowances as applicable to a District Judge or whether the pensionary benefits that he could draw for his prior services as a District Judge should be deducted from the emoluments of the post, as it was a post retirement appointment.

8. The Consum