K S GOPINATHA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has come up for consideration in this batch of cases is whether reemployed pensioner who is regulated by the provisions of R.100 Part III of the Kerala Service Rules is entitled to draw pension and dearness relief thereon along with reemployment pay

(2.) A Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Govindankutty, 1999 (2) KLT 746 , held that a District Judge reemployed 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 retired District Judge reappointed 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:--