M.K. Govindankutty vs State and others

C.S. Rajan, J.—The petitioner is a retired District Judge. He was appointed as the President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur by order dated 8-11-1991. At that time he had already retired from the post of District Judge. Section 10(3) of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the salary or honorarium and other allowances payable to, and the other terms and conditions of service of the members of the District Forum shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government. Accordingly, the State Government has issued Consumer Protection (Kerala) Rules, 1987. Rule 3(1) of the above rules provides for the salaries and other allowances of the President and Members of the District Forum. Rule 3(1) is extracted below for reference: (1) The President of the District Forum shall receive the salary of the Judge of a District Court if appointed on whole-time basis or an honorarium of Rs. 150/- per day for the sitting if appointed on part-time basis, other members if sitting on whole time basis, shall receive a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 2000/- per month and if sitting on part-time basis, a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 100/- per day for the sitting.

On the basis of the above rule the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the President of a District Forum shall receive the salary of the Judge of a District Court if appointed on whole-time basis or an honorarium of Rs. 150 per day for each sitting if appointed on part time basis. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner was appointed as President on a whole-time basis. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to get the salary of the Judge of a District Court.

Exhibit P-1 order dated 5-2-1992 is relied on by the learned Government Pleader to contend that the provisions contained in Rule 100 of part III K.S.R. must also governed the appointment of the petitioner as the President of the District Forum because he is a retired District Judge and therefore his appointment can be considered only as one of re-employment after retirement. Rule 100 inter alia states that the pay plus pension and pension equivalent of other forms of retirement benefits shall not exceed Rs. 3,500/-. He will also be allowed to draw the full pension in addition to the pay so fixed but will not be given temporary or ad hoc increase in pension. He will get the basic pension besides the re-employment pay fixed under the rule plus full Dearness Allowance on the re-employment pay. No increment will be earned during the period of re-employment, except in the case of military pensioners re-employed in civil posts.

I do not think the provision regarding re-employment as contained in Rule 100 of Part-III K.S.R. is applicable to the petitioner whose conditions of service regarding the payment of salaries and other allowances are governed by the Consumer Protection Rules framed by the Government u/s 10(3) of the Consumer Protection Act. The legal principle that a statutory rule cannot be amended by an executive order like Exhibit P-1 is well accepted. Therefore, when the statutory rule prescribes that the President of the District Forum shall receive the salary of a Judge of the District Court, by Exhibit P-1 executive order the same cannot be abridged or amended. The further contention in the counter affidavit that Rule 3(1) of the Consumer Protection (Kerala) Rules and Rule 100 of Part-III K.S.R. are complementary to each other is also not appealing to me. If the Consumer Protection (Kerala) Rules applied to the petitioner, then what is payable under Rule 100 part III K.S.R. will be much lesser and therefore disadvantageous to the petitioner. Therefore, Rule 100 of Part-III K.S.R. operates in an entirely different field. The appointment of the president of the District Forum is under the Central Act, consumer protection Act. Therefore, the conditions of service of those presidents of the District Forum must be governed by the rules specifically framed for that purpose. In the above area of operation, it is not legally possible to bring in the rule regarding re-employment of officers contained in Part-III K.S.R. Therefore, I think the stand taken by the petitioner is legally sustainable and has to be accepted. Thus, I declare that the petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of the salary of the Judge of a District Court as prescribed in Rule 3(1) of the Consumer Protection (Kerala) Rules, 1987. The petitioner is also entitled to get the arrears of salary from the date of his appointment till now on the basis of the above declaration. The term of office of the petitioner is to expire on 16-12-1996. Therefore, it is necessary that the petitioner must be paid the arrears of salary on account of the above declaration before 15-12-1996. Even though there is claim for interest made by the petitioner in this original petition. I am not inclined to grant the same because the salary as per the rules was denied to the petitioner not on account of any laches on the part of the Government but only because an erroneous interpretation of the rules.

The Original Petition is allowed as indicated above.