THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, M.P. versus S.K. DUBEY & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 3 S.C.R. 720 · Decided: 29-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 720 
THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, M.P. 
V. 
· S.K. DUBEY & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5322 of 2005) 
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 
• [R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - ss. 16(2), 30(2), 31, 
20j), 2(n) - Retired High Courtjudge appointed as President 
C of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission -
Rendered service as President, State Commission for 4 
years, 10 months and 22 days - Pension for the said 
subsequent period - Entitlement to - Whether in absence of 
any specific provision therefor in the State Rules for grant of 
o pension, it is open to the State Government to have provided 
by way of an executive order that the service rendered by the 
respondent as President of the State Commission would be 
counted as pensionable service - Held: In view of difference 
of opinion, . matter referred to the larger Bench - Reference 
E to larger bench - Madhya Pradesh Consumer Protection 
Rules, '1987 - r. 6 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 162. 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
instant appeal was whether the first respondent who 
functioned as the President of the State Consumer 
F Disputes Redressal Commission, in Madhya Pradesh for 
a period of about 4 years and 11 months, after his 
retirem'ent as a High Court Judge, was entitled to receive 
pension for this subsequent period in the absence of any 
specific provision therefor in the Madhya Pradesh 
G Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 framed under the 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and whether in the 
absence of any express rule in the State Rules, was it 
open to the State of Madhya Pradesh to have provided 
by way of an Executive order dated April 5, 2002 that the 
H 
720 
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, M.P. v. S.K. DUBEY & 
721 
ANR. 
service rendered by the respondent as President of the 
A 
State Commission would be counted as pensionable 
service. 
Referring the matter to larger bench, the Court 
HELD: Per Lodha,J.: 
B 
1.1. For the purposes of computation of pension 
payable to the respondent his different services, namely, 
service as a Judge of the High Court and service as 
President, State Commission cannot be clubbed. The 
C 
respondent is entitled to pension as a High Court Judge 
only for the period rendered by him in that capacity. The 
subsequent service rendered by him as President, State 
Commission cannot be charged to the Consolidated 
Fund of India. This position was not disputed by the o 
respondent in the High Court nor it is disputed before this 
Court. [Para 21] [741-A-C] 
1.2. The State Government of Madhya Pradesh in 
exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of 
Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has 
E 
framed the State Rules for the subjects enumerated 
therein including Section 16(2). Rule 6 of the M.P. 
Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 thereof provides for 
salary and other allowances and terms and conditions of 
the President and Members of the State Commission. The 
F 
said Rule does not provide that service of the President, 
State Commission is a pensionable service and, 
therefore, despite the office order dated April 5, 2002 
issued by the State Government to the effect that service 
rendered by the respondent as President of the State G 
Commission was pensionable service, the respondent is 
not entitled to any pension for the service he rendered 
as President, State Commission. It is clear from the Rule 
6 that it does not make any provision in making the 
service of the President and Members of the State 
H 
722 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 
A Commission a pensionable service. State Rules are 
totally silent in this regard. [Paras 23, 30] [741-G-H; 742-
A-B; 746-H; 747-A] 
1.3. Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the 
8 executive power of a State extends to the matters with 
respect to which the Legislature of the State has power 
to make laws. This is what is provided in Article 162 of 
the Constitution. In other words, the executive power of 
the State Executive is co-extensive with that of the State 
C Legislature. [Para 31] [747-C] 
Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 
1910: 1968 SCR 111; La/it Mohan Deb vs. Union of India 
1973 (3) SCC 862; Union of India and Anr. v. Central 
Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service (CE&MES) 
D Group 'A' (Direct Recruits) Association, CPWD and Ors. 
(2008) 1 SCC 354: 2007 (11) SCR 863 - referred to. 
1.4. The statutory provision contained in Section 16(2) 
is quite clear. It p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.