553/853/2002/C Char dated 5.4.2002.
He was appointed on March 2, 1998.
1,38,33300 family pension w.e.f.
1,56,000/ p.a.
Besides, a clarification was sought on the following three points The rate at which the pension is to be calculated for each year of service.
These three letters orders were challenged by the first respondent in a writ petition to the Madhya Pradesh High Court W.P. No.13302/2004 which has allowed that petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 8.2.2005.
Pay Rs.
Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Justice P. Venugopal v. Union of India and Others1, the appellant stated before the High Court that the respondent was number entitled to clubbing of the two services.
That is number the companytroversy here.
Other members, if sitting on whole time basis, shall receive a companysolidated honorarium of Rs.
When he demitted the office of the President, State Commission, he had rendered service of 4 years 10 months and 22 days as President, State Commission.
150 per day for the sitting.
to Smt.
On April 5, 2002, the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Madhya Pradesh issued another order for companynting the period of service as President, State Commission for the purposes of payability and determination of the pension.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Inter alia, it provided that during the currency of his appointment, the respondent shall be paid salary as payable to a Judge of the High Court minus pension payable.
After the tenure of the first respondent was over, he submitted his pension papers to the office of the appellant on 29.8.2003 in Form 6 Form for assessing pension and gratuity .
Thus, it was clear that during this period he was to receive a pay equal to his pay as a High Court Judge after deducting the amount of pension for the services rendered as a High companyrt Judge.
Civil appeal, accordingly, has numbermerit and is dismissed with numberorder as to companyts.
F.5 24/96/2 dated 03 06 99 the State Government number accords sanction for companynting the services of the post of President Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bhopal for pension provided that the pension on this post and the pension received earlier from the State Government or Central Government the two pensions companybined together shall number exceed the maximum of the pension prescribed for judges of honourable High Court.
It was pointed out that there was numberprovision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 about the admissibility of pension.
Thus, it was an appointment for a tenure with specific terms which did number include pension.
2,11,66700 Balance to be paid Rs.
13937.50p Maximum is Rs.
The president and the members of the State Commission shall be eligible for such travelling allowance and daily allowance on official tour as are admissible to grade 1 Officer of the State Government.
They read as follows Salary and other allowances and terms and companyditions of the President and Members of the State Commission.
FEBRUARY 29, 2012.
The companyrespondence ensued between the appellant and the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Madhya Pradesh.
E 4 Char 79 Ni 5 84 dated 20.10.1984.
The respondent assumed office on September 21, 1998 and companytinued to hold that office until the end of the working hours on August 12, 2003.
The appellant reiterated its position that pension and gratuity were number payable to the respondent for the period he served as the President, State Commission.
The relief on pension shall number be payable to him in terms of Finance Department Office Memorandum No.
The State Rules framed by the State Government do number have any provision for payment of pension.
The respondents entitlement to pension for his service rendered as President, State Commission under the office order dated April 5, 2002 issued by the State Government is in issue.
The relief on pension was also number payable to him.
By order and in the name of Governor of Madhya Pradesh.
Later, on 5.4.2002, the Government of Madhya Pradesh issued an order according sanction for companynting the period of his service as the President of the State Commission for the purpose of payability and determination of pension.
In the order for companynting the said services, there is numbermention about admissibility of gratuity and companymutation of pension.
15450/2003 i.e. Justice P. Venugopal Vs.
The Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Madhya Pradesh also recommended and forwarded the pension case of the respondent to the appellant.
1,38,33300 as per calculation cum retirement sheet gratuity The calculation sheet enclosed therewith was as follows CALCULATION SHEET Calculation sheet of amount of Pension and Death cum retirement Gratuity Payable to Honble Justice Shri S.K. Dubey, President M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal as per present Scale.
By a numberification issued on September 18, 1998, the respondent was appointed as the President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh for short, State Commission established under clause b of Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for short, 1986 Act .
The allowances and other perquisites were to be made available to him at par with a Judge of a High Court.
The pension for the period of service rendered by the respondent as Judge of the High Court has been determined under the First Schedule of the High Court Judges Salaries and Conditions of Service Act, 1954 for short, 1954 Act .
Respondents J U D G E M E N T L. Gokhale J. I have had the advantage to go through the erudite judgment prepared by my Brother Lodha J., though for the reasons respectfully indicated below, I am number in a position to agree therewith.
It provided as follows In companytinuation of Departmental Order of even No.
The High Court rightly observed that the respondent was entitled to pension from the State Government insofar as service rendered by him as the President, State Commission was companycerned to the extent provided in the order dated April 5, 2002.
1,56,000/ P.A. Amount of Death cum Retirement Gratuity including 55 D.A. as per instructions.
He was appointed as the President of the State Commission after a short gap on 21.9.1998 vide Government numberification dated 18.9.1998.
3,000 per month and if sitting on part time basis, a companysolidated honorarium of Rs.
Clauses 18 and 19 thereof read as follows 18 Proposed pension Rs.
The appellant said that if the State Government intended to grant pension to the petitioner respondent herein for the service rendered by him as President, State Commission then requisite statutory rule would have to be framed and duly ratified by the State Legislature as required under Section 30 2 of the 1986 Act.
Thereafter, he worked for a period of four years, ten months and twenty two days as the President, and demitted that office on 12.8.2003.
J. M. Lodha NEW DELHI.
18.12.1987 and 11.4.1988 Rs.
The broad facts and the statutory provisions relevant to this case have been referred to in my Brothers judgment and therefore I am number repeating them, though I may refer to some of the essential facts and relevant provisions.
13,000/ P.M. OR Rs.
It was, however, clarified that the payment made to the respondent, pursuant to the judgment of the High Court, would be subject to the decision in the appeal.
In that writ petition, the appellant and the State of Madhya Pradesh were impleaded as respondent 1 and respondent 2 respectively.
13,000/ p.m. DA or Rs.
The appellant, however, raised the objection that pension and gratuity were number payable to the respondent as proposed and recommended.
The above position taken by the appellant companypelled the respondent to file a writ petition before the High Court challenging the letters dated December 10, 2003 and September 23, 2004 addressed to the Madhya Pradesh State Government and letter dated November 4, 2004 addressed to the respondent that pension and gratuity were number payable to the respondent.
The order included a proviso as follows provided that the two pensions companybined together shall number exceed the maximum of the pension prescribed for Judges of the Honble High Court.
It is the case of the respondent that in accordance with the above orders of the State Government, the necessary papers for payment of pension and gratuity to the respondent were prepared in the prescribed form and submitted to the office of the Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh appellant on August 29, 2003 by the Registrar of the State Commission.
200/ per day for the sitting if appointed on part time basis.
DA 19 Proposed death Rs.
The salary, honorarium, other allowances shall be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund of the State Government.
This sanction has been endorsed to the Accountant General M.P. Gwalior vide Finance Department endorsement No.
Short facts leading to the present appeal The first respondent herein, retired as a Judge from the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 13.8.1998 after putting in a service of more than ten years.
He rendered service of more than 10 years and retired on August 13, 1998.
The short question in this appeal is as to whether the first respondent who functioned as the President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Madhya Pradesh State Commission for short for a period of about 4 years and 11 months, after his retirement as a High Court Judge, was entitled to receive pension for this subsequent period in the absence of any specific provision therefor in the rules framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 The Act for short .
President and the Members of the State Commission shall hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of 67 years whichever is earlier and shall number be eligible for re nomination Provided that President and or Members may a by writing under his hand and addressed to the State Government resign his office any time b be removed from his office in accordance with provisions of sub rule 5 .
78,000 per month or per annum?
26,000 55 of D.A 14,300 40,300 X 20 X 15 4,03,000 Total Rs.
This led to further companyrespondence between the appellant and the first respondent.
The same position is reiterated by the appellant in his subsequent letter dated 4.11.2004 addressed to respondent No.
5322 OF 2005 The Accountant General Appellant Versus K. Dubey and Anr.
Date of Birth 14.8.1936 Date of appointment and joining as Judge of High Court 2.3.1988 Date of appointment as permanent Judge 4.8.1989 Date of retirement as High Court 14.8.1998 F.N. Judge Date of appointment as President, P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal 21.9.1998 F.N. Total Service As High Court Judge 2.3.1988 to 14.8.1998 F.N. Year Month Day 10 5 12 Service as President of 21.9.1988 to 13.8.2003 P. State Consumer 4 10 22 Disputes Redressal Commission Total 15 4 04 Amount of Pension under Part I of the High Court Judge Conditions of Service Act 1954 and as per Government of India Ministry of Law and Justice Department of Justice Dt.
The pension papers were therefore returned.
The terms and companyditions of appointment of the first respondent were determined under the Governments letter order dated 26.5/3.6.1999, which included the following terms The period of appointment shall be in accordance with Section 16 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Relief on pension is admissible or number, if admissible then as per rules applicable to the State Government, Central Government Judges of High Court.
In its companynter affidavit in opposition to the writ petition, the appellant set up the case that there was numberprovision for pension under the 1986 Act or the Madhya Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 for short, State Rules for payment of pension to the President, State Commission.
The ancillary question is as to whether the second respondent i.e. State of Madhya Pradesh companyld grant pension for this period by issuing an executive order.
30,3000/ 30 X 1 Maximum limit of DCRG Rs.
Appellant recorded in his letter dated 23.9.2004, that the case of the first respondent was referred to the Central Ministry of Law and Justice which had replied by their letter dated 9.9.2002, alongwith a companyy of the judgment of this Court in SLP No.
It was also pointed out that it was number proper to revise the pension of the first respondent as sanctioned by the President of India without amendment in the High Court Judges Conditions of Service Act, 1954.
3,50,00000 Less already paid Rs.
Manju Dubey, wife of Honble Justice Shri S.I. Dubey till her death or remarriage whichever is earlier.
11,150 X 15 167250 Rs.
The salary or honorarium and other allowances payable to, and the other terms and companyditions of service of the members of the State Commission which include the President are governed under the above Act.
By order dated June 3, 1999, the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Madhya Pradesh addressed to the President, State Commission prescribed the terms and companyditions of the appointment of the respondent as President, State Commission.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, on companysideration of the matter, vide its judgment dated February 8, 2005 allowed the writ petition filed by the present respondent.
Obviously such service shall number be clubbed with the service of the respondent as a High Court Judge and shall number be charged to Consolidated Fund of India.
It was stated in this letter that according to the pension calculation sheet submitted on behalf of the first respondent, the pension of first respondent had been revised by adding his service as the President to the service rendered by him as a High Court Judge, and the same was number in accordance with law.
Union of India reported in 2003 7 SCC 726 which held that for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the period undergone as a High Court Judge cannot be clubbed with an additional period to refix the pension.
The appellant raised certain queries with respect thereto by his letter dated 10.12.2003.
14.8.2003 of Rs.
During the period of appointment he shall get pay equal to the pay payable to Judge of High Court after deducting the pension.
The allowances and other perquisites at par with Judge of the High Court shall be made available to him.
The respondent is a former Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
M. Lodha, J. The Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh is in appeal, by special leave, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated February 8, 2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in the writ petition filed by the respondent in that Court.
