STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two cases raise an interesting question of law as to whether pension can be deduced from the salary of a member of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service holding the assignment of a President of District Consumer Forum continuing as such after superannuation in the RHJS. The other questions of law would also arise for consideration in these two cases to which we will refer to it later.

(2.) SHYAM Sundar Gupta, respondent in Special Appeal No. 796/97 was appointed as President of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sikar vide order dated 2. 6. 1994 by the State of Rajasthan under Section 10 (1) (A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He was relieved from the post of District Judge on 18. 6. 94 and he joined his new posting as President of District Consumer Forum on 18. 6. 94 and he has been working as such since then. The respondent attained the age of superannuation of District Judge on 31. 5. 95. He got his pension decided and commuted and got the released amount of his gratuity and General Provident Fund amount, State Insurance, leave encashment etc. and thus took about Rs. 5 lacs from all these heads as is apparent from the order of the learned Single Judge. The gross pension was sanctioned @ Rs. 3050/- per month which was reduced to net amount payable as Rs. 2034 monthly on account of commutation of pension.

(3.) THIS judgment was followed by another learned Single Judge at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, against which, an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in D. B. Special Appeal No. 698/98 which was disposed by the judgment dated 1. 12. 1998 (2) by a Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. S. Kokje, Acting Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. S. Godara. The learned Judges after discussing the points raised by the counsel appearing on either side and also after referring to Section 10 (1) of the Act and Rule 3 of sub clause 1 and other provisions came to the following conclusion: "however, so long as the Rule is not amended we will have to construe it harmoniously and reasonably. It appears just, proper and reasonable that a person who is appointed as President of the District Forum while he is in the RHJS should continue to draw the salary he was drawing in the RHJS as President of the District Forum. He should also continue to get all emoluments and increments in the salaries and allowance to which he would have been entitled to if he had continued in the mainstream judiciary during the period he is in the District Forum till his retirement on superannuation from RHJS. On retirement on superannuation from RHJS he should not be entitled to double benefit by getting an extension of service up to 65 years of age or till completion of 5 years term as also salary plus pension. At best, such a person can be deemed to have continued in the RHJS beyond the age of superannuation for the purpose of calculation of salaries and other emoluments. The most reasonable construction which can be put on the provisions is that the last salary drawn by such a person in the RHJS on the date of his retirement should be his salary for the purpose of the rules. THIS means that he would not be entitled to draw the amount of pension also alongwith the salary. It is true that Rule 337 of the Rajasthan Service Rules applies to re-employment and this being not a re-employment as such and which at best can be called to be re-employment in advance, the Rule 337 strictly would not apply".