STATE OF M.P. Vs. N.K. VAIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the State of M. P. along with the Registrar, M. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have called in question the legal propriety of the Order dated 22 -1 -2000 passed by M. P. Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal (in short 'the Tribunal') in O. A. No. 138/1998.

(2.) THE facts which are essential to be stated for disposal of the present writ petition are that the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant") preferred an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1985 Act') before the Tribunal for grant of Rs. 3000/ - as honorarium, which is being given to the other members of the M. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the "Commission").

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondent No. 1, the applicant before the Tribunal justifying the order passed by the Tribunal. Emphasis has been laid on the concept of discrimination between the two members. Absence of any full time or part time member under the Act, the distinction between the terminology "if sitting" and "if appointed"; and the absence the logicality for creating a distinction in regard to conveyance allowance and various other factors have been highlighted. While replying to the concept of holding of civil post under the Act, it has been stated that it has nexus inasmuch as the applicant has been appointed in connection with the affairs of the State under the control of the State Government and if section 16(2) of the 1986 Act is understood in proper perspective, it would be quite clear that the applicant holds a civil post and, therefore, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the matter and has correctly decided the lis in question.