M.S. CHAWLA AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 16-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
M.S. CHAWLA AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
APRIL 16, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Section 10. 
District Consumer Forum-President-Salary of-Pension-
Deductibility from-Retired District Judge appointed as President-Pension 
drawn by such District Judge deducted from salary payable to such President-
Validity of-Held: The appointment of a retired District Judge as President 
A 
B 
c 
of District Consumer Forum is a case of re-employment of a pensioner-Such 
pensioners are governed by Punjab Civil Services Rules-Hence, salary of D 
such re-employed District Judge as President has been rightly fixed after 
.. 
deducting his pension amount-Punjab Civil Services Rules, Note 3(a)(i) to 
R. 7.18 Ch. VII Vol. II-Government Order dated 25-1-1996. 
The appellants were retired Dh1lict Judges p1ior to their a1>1>ointments E 
as Presidents of District Consumer Forums under Section 10 of the 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The respondent-State issued a Government 
order dated 25-1-1996 by which it was .directed that the pension amount of 
each of these ap1>ellants should be deducted from their salary payable to them 
as Presidents of the District Consumer Forums. The High Court dismissed 
the \Vlit 1>etition filed by the appellants challenging the aforesaid order. Hence F 
this a1>1>eal. 
On behalf of the res1>0ndents it was contended that the ap1>ellants were 
re-employed pensioners; that under Section 7.18 of Chapter VII of Volume Il 
of the Punjab CMI Senices Rules the com1>etent authority could determine G 
whether the app!!llants' pension would be held wholly or partly in abeyance; 
and that Note 3(a)(i) of Section 7.18 of the Rules .stipulated that pension 
which was non-effective pay should not ordinarily be allowed in addition. 
The following question arose before this Court 
81 
H 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. . 
A 
Whether the pension amount received by the appellants in respect of 
B 
their previous services as District Judges can be deducted from the salary of 
_the President of the District Consumer Forum fixed under the provisions of 
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Rules framed t)lereunder? 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The appointment of a Distrfrt Judge, after his 
superannuation as the President of the District Consumer Forum under the 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot but be held to be a case of re-
employment of a pensioner inasmuch as the said District Judge is in receipt 
C of a 1>ension for the senices rendered'as a Distlict Judge in accordance with 
the 1>rovisions contained in the Punjab Civil Senrices Rules, Chapter VII of 
Volume II. [87-A-B] 
1.2. The au1>ropriate authority "ill have to decide the pay and allowance, 
which the retired District Judge is entitled to receive on being ap1>0inted as 
D the President of the District Forum n9twithstandin.g the fixation of such pay 
under the Rules framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and while 
fixing the same, the principle underlined in Note 3(a)(i) to Section 7.18 of 
Cha1>ter VII of Volume II of the Rules has to be followed. [87-C] 
2. There is no infirmity in the Government Order dated 25-1-1996 by · 
E which the salary of the re-employed District Judges as President of the 
District Consumer Forum has rightly been fixed takin~: into account the 
pension which they are in receipt _of as retired District Judges. [87-D] 
F 
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civi.l Appeal No. 907 of 
2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.3.99 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 4351of1998. 
WITH 
G 
Civil Appeal No. 908 of2001. 
P.P. Rao, Anoop G. Chaudhary, Ravindra Bana, Manoj Swamp, Prem 
Malhotra, K. C. Bajaj, Vinod Shukla, Rajeev Sharma, Mahabir Singh and Sandeep 
Singh for the appearing parties. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
i 
M.S. CHAWLA v. STATE (PATTANAIK, J.] 
83 
PATTANAIK, J. These appeals filed by the Presidents of the District A 
Consumer Forum, appointed under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection 
Act, are directed against the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court and 
the question for consideration is whether the pension amount received by 
these appellants in respect of their previous services as District Judges, can 
be deducted from the salary of the President of the District Consumer Forum, 
fixed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the rules B 
framed thereunder? Th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.