STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE this appeal and two writ petitions are inter-connected, we heard and dispose of them by this common order.

(2.) THIS reference has been made to the Larger Bench by the Division Bench vide order dated 22. 3. 2001 in the case State of Raj. vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta (1) and Surendra Singh vs. State of Raj. & Ors. In both cases similar issues have been raised. One more case has been tagged i. e. RHJS Officers Association & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan Following questions are referred to this Larger Bench:- 1. Whether President, consumer Forum gets salary of a District Judge? 2. If a person already in service is appointed as President, Consumer Forum, he will continue to get the same salary till he reaches the age of superannuation provided under the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules? 3. After date of retirement from the Higher Judicial Services, if the person still continues as President of the Consumer forum to complete the tenure provided under the Act, whether he will continue to get the same salary last drawn by him or usual salary of a District Judge plus the pension for which he was otherwise entitled for after his due retirement as member of Higher Judicial Services? 4. During the tenure as President of Consumer Forum whether a person can be treated as member of Higher Judicial Services even after he reaches the age of superannuation so as to entitle him to all the benefits of services for the remaining period of his tenure as President, Consumer Forum? (5) Whether there can be any re-employment of President, Consumer Forum during the fixed tenure, if the person appointed as President while in service, after his retirement from the services? (6) What is the status of a member of RHJS who is appointed as President. District Forum while in the RHJS and continuing as such after his superannuation in the RHJS? (7) whether aforesaid appointment of a member of RHJS at any stage can be reckoned as "re-employment" or whether it is to be held as "statutory appointment"?

(3.) THE petitioner challenged the order dated 22. 7. 1998 (Annex. 7) and order dated 22. 7. 1998 (Annex. 8), whereby the earlier fixation order has been cancelled taking the view that after retirement from RHJS, the Petitioner cannot get the benefit of Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1998. THE Petitioner claimed that even after retirement from RHJS, he be treated in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service having the same benefit as available to the RHJS as he joined the Forum while he was in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services.