U.B.KHANDUJA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition for certiorari, the petitioner has challenged orders passed by the respondents dated 31.03.2004 Annexure P/10, whereby the pay and allowance payable to the petitioner has been refixed after reducing the amount of pension and pension equivalent to gratuity. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Sub Judge on 12.05.1977 and was promoted to Superior Judicial Service on 06.05.1994. It has been averred that he was supposed to retire on attaining 60 years of age on 28.02.1998. It is contended that the respondents in order to fill post of Presidents of the District Consumer Forums in the State of Haryana had sought applications and after adopting due process of law he was issued letter dated 18.1.1995 (Annexure P/1) holding out that the petitioner's appointment was under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) and the Rules framed there under. The petitioner joined his duties on 08.05.1995 and continued to discharge his duties till 7.5.2000.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.5900-6700 total around Rs.14,000/-, (the super time selection grade of District & Sessions Judges) was granted to the Presidents appointed vide letter dated 18.11.1997 (Annexure P/4) from amongst the members of the bar. The petitioner made a representation dated 27.05.1998 (Annexure P/5) for allowing the petitioner to draw pay in this grade from the date of assuming charge as the State has treated the post of President of Consumer Forum as equivalent to the super time selection grade of the Superior Judicial Service. Such representation was accepted and composite sanction granting regular pay scale of Rs.5900-6700 with effect from 01.11.1997 was made to all the Presidents of the District Forums in the State of Haryana by way of Annexure P/6 dated 10.11.1999. It is the claim of the petitioner that he has been drawing these emoluments on the basis of this order till completion of his statutory tenure of 5 years on 07.05.2000.

(3.) It is alleged that an order dated 01.10.2001 Annexure P/7 was received by the petitioner whereby the previous orders of pay fixation were amended for the reason that the retired/superannuated judicial officers will be entitled to last pay drawn excluding deputation allowance minus pension and pension equivalent of gratuity and no dearness allowance or other allowance on pension would be admissible. Since the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.1998, his emoluments stood changed retrospectively with effect from 01.03.1998 to 07.05.2000. As a result, the petitioner will be entitled to last pay drawn excluding deputation allowance minus pension and pension equivalent of gratuity and no dearness allowance or other allowance on pension would be admissible to him. By another quirk of fate respondent No.1 issued another order substituting fresh conditions by way of Annexure P7/A relating to pre-retirement period with effect from 01.11.1997 to 28.02.1998 subscribing that the petitioner shall draw pay as admissible in the pay scale of his parent department plus Rs.100/- as deputation allowance and therefore, was not entitled to the emoluments in the pay scale of Rs.5900- 6700. The representation submitted by the petitioner against such action remained unsuccessful as per the order communicated on 31.03.2004 (Annexure P-10). Aggrieved over it has led to the filing of the instant writ petition.