JUSTICE DEBENDRA MOHAN PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner while functioning as sitting Judge of this High court, was appointed as the President, State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, orissa ('state Commission', hereinafter) and assumed charges on 21-4-1999. He remained in dual charges till 31-8-1999, when he retired as a Judge of this High Court. Thereafter, he continued as the President of the State Commission till 21-4-2004.

(2.) SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 16 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') provides that the salary or honorarium and other allowances payable to, and the other terms and conditions of service (including tenure of office)of the members of the State Commission shall be such as may be prescribed by the state Government. Rule 6 of the Orissa Consumer protection Rules, 1987 framed under the Act provides :

(3.) WHILE continuing as the whole-time president of the State Commission, the pe-titioner was paid salary of a High Court judge, i. e. Rs. 26,000/- per month with admissible dearness allowance and other allowances after deducting the pension amount, i. e. Rs. 12,724/-, therefrom. The annual pension of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 1,52,696/- considering his length of qualifying service, i. e. , 23 years, 7 months and 28 days. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the action of the O. Ps. in deducting the pension component from the salary paid to the petitioner as President of the State Commission is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Justice S. K. Ray v. State of Orissa and others, 90 (2000) CLT 362, which on being appealed was affirmed by the Apex Court, Rule 6 (1)of the Orissa Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, which is framed in terms of Section 16 (2) of the Act provides that the President of the State Commission shall receive the salary of the Judge of a High Court, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, means that the President will get his salary and there is no question of deducting the pension, which is received by a judge from the Consolidated Fund of India as per Art. 112, Cl. (3) (d) (iii) of the Constitution of India. In this background of fact, our attention is drawn to the following observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Sankalchand himatlal Sheth and another, reported in AIR 1977 SC 2328 :