STATE OF KERALA Vs. GOVINDANKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.) 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.