Benefits derived from a prospective judicial pronouncement concerning the extension of service tenure cannot be claimed by individuals whose employment relationship was terminated before the date of such judgment. Reliefs authorized for currently serving personnel do not extend to the reinstatement of those already relieved of their duties.

ORDER

The brief facts that are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are as under:

1.1. The petitioner herein, who was retired as a District Judge, was appointed as the President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai, on 30.04.2022 and later, he was transferred to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karur, on 27.10.2023. While the petitioner was working as such at Karur, the third respondent issued a proceedings bearing Rc No.A1/1157/2025-1, dated 08.05.2025, for relieving the petitioner from the post of President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karur, on the afternoon of 14.05.2025 on he attaining the age of 65 years as per Rule 10(2) of Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020. Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved from the said post on 14.05.2025.

1.2. It was thereafter, the Honourable Apex Court delivered a Judgment dated 21.05.2025, in the case of Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar and others vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye and others, reported in (2025) 8 SCC 634, dealing with the issues relating to the appointment of the Presidents and Members of the Consumer Forums in the State of Maharashtra and the State of Telangana. In the said decision, the Honourable Apex Court examined various other aspects, including the necessity of having a common set of Rules applicable to the Consumer Fora in all the States etc., and issued various general directions at Paragraph No.102 of the said decision. It was placing reliance on the said directions, the petitioner herein claims to have submitted a representation dated 02.06.2025 to the third respondent requesting for his continuation in the post of President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karur, beyond the age of 65 years and till the new recruitment is undertaken under the new Rules to be notified by the Union of India. The said request of the petitioner was forwarded by the third respondent to the second respondent and the same was rejected by the second respondent through proceedings dated 15.12.2025, on the ground that the benefit of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar's case is only with prospective effect and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the said decision. It is aggrieved by the said relieving order dated 08.05.2025, passed by the third respondent and rejection order dated 15.12.2025, passed by the second respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

2. Heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel representing Mr.K.Mu.Muthu, learned counsel on record for the petitioner; Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar, learned Central Government Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the first respondent and Mr.V.Om Prakash, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents 2 & 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in terms of the summary of the reliefs that were granted by the Honourable Apex Court in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar's case, especially at Sub-Paragraph No.4 of Paragraph No.102, in specific the relief No.3, the petitioner is entitled to continue in the post of President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission till the recruitment process under the new Rules to