Back
Rules for Consumer Commission Members Under
RANCHI: In a significant ruling that clarifies the scope of the 's judgment, the has held that the benefit of for consumer commission members is not restricted to those who retired on or after the pronouncement date of .
Justice Deepak Roshan, hearing four writ petitions, modified a state government notification that had arbitrarily limited the relief to post-May 21 retirees. The court ordered the of four former Presidents and Members of who had retired between and .
Four Petitioners Left Out of State Notification
The petitioners—Umesh Singh (former Member, Latehar), Suresh Chandra Jaiswal (former President, Jamtara), Bimal Kumar Lakra (former Member, Simdega), and Chandan Banerjee (former Member, Dumka)—were appointed between for a tenure of four years or until reaching age 65, whichever was earlier. Their tenures ended between and .
After the delivered its judgment in ( ) on , the Jharkhand government issued Notification No. 2689 dated , extending the term only for Presidents and Members who had retired on or after the judgment date. The petitioners, having retired earlier, were excluded from this benefit.
State's Narrow Interpretation Rejected
The state argued that the 's directions in of protected only those office-holders who were still in service when the judgment was pronounced. Since the petitioners had already retired, they could not claim reinstatement.
The petitioners countered that of the same judgment—which governs "Presidents and Members of the who have been appointed and serving prior to " (the earlier judgment of )—entitled them to complete their tenure and, if that tenure ended before the conclusion of the , to continue until the new appointments were made. They argued that of , existed in that direction.
Parsing the 's Directions
Justice Roshan carefully analysed the directions. He noted that all four petitioners were appointed in 2021—well before —and were serving when their tenures naturally ended. They therefore fell squarely within the category protected by .
The court observed that the state notification had misread the 's order. The date , was merely the date of pronouncement of and did not appear anywhere in as a qualifying date for entitlement.
The High Court also drew support from the 's subsequent order in Urmila Verma v. State of Rajasthan (SLP No. 36217/2025), where the apex court itself directed the of a member whose term ended after , without imposing any cut-off based on the judgment date.
'' Emphasized by Court
In a key observation, the High Court declared:
"As a matter of fact, of nowhere confines the benefit of continuation to Office-holders who retired on or after the date of the judgment itself. of the directions which governs Presidents and Members appointed and serving prior to entitles such persons to complete their tenure in entirety and, where tenure ends before completion of new recruitment process, to continue in office until that process is completed."
The court further emphasised that the petitioners were "persons 'appointed and serving prior to '"and thus"entitled to continue in office until completion of the , regardless of whether their retirement fell before or after 21.05.2025."
and Uninterrupted Service Ordered
The court allowed all four writ petitions with the following directions: each petitioner shall be reemployed in their respective District Consumer Commission forthwith, and their service shall be deemed to have continued uninterruptedly from the date of their original retirement until fresh recruitment is made or the rules are suitably amended.
Specifically, Umesh Singh will be reemployed as Member, Latehar from ; Suresh Chandra Jaiswal as President, Jamtara from ; Bimal Kumar Lakra as Member, Simdega from ; and Chandan Banerjee as Member, Dumka from .
The court also modified the state's notification to the extent that it restricted the benefit to post- retirees. It directed that all Presidents and Members of who were appointed and serving prior to shall be allowed to complete their tenure and, if their tenure ends before the completion of the new recruitment process, shall continue until that process is completed.
The ruling ensures that consumer commission members who served before the legal framework was unsettled by subsequent amendments are not deprived of the continuity protections the intended, regardless of when their original term happened to expire.
