Disposed

Jacob Stephen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Apr 2024WP(C)/22524/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Former Presidents of district consumer forums sought pension at District Judge scale, challenging orders denying it under Rule 15(4) of the Kerala Consumer Protection Rules. The court found the rejection a non-application of mind but declined to interfere in policy, quashing the rejection and directing reconsideration of the representation within six months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 set aside; 1st respondent directed to reconsider Ext.P4 representation within six months.

Jacob Stephen Vs State of Kerala — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 22524 OF 2019

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 JACOB STEPHEN, AGED 63 YEARS, FORMER PRESIDENT, CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSEL FORUM PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDING AT KAVUMKAL HOUSE, NELLIKKAMON.P.O., RANNI.

¶7

2 G.SIVAPRASAD, FORMER PRESIDENT, CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSEL FORUM, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT T.C.17/2005(3), CRA 30(C), THALAKKONAM, NEAR ANVAR GARDENS, POOJAPPURA.P.O., TRIVANDRUM.

¶8

3 G.YADUNATHAN, FORMER PRESIDENT, CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSEL FORUM KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KOZHIKKODE, RESIDING AT ADOT HOUSE, AJANUR.P.O., KOSDURG, KASARGODU DISTRICT.

¶9

4 LAIJU R., PRESIDENT, FORMER CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSEL FORUM IDUKKI DISTRICT, IDUKKI, RESIDING AT LAL NIVAS, VENGALLUR.P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

5 SEENA H., PRESIDENT, FORMER CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSEL FORUM PALAKKAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT ASHA NILAYAM, GANESHGIRI, SHORANUR.P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶11

6 PADMINI SUDHEESH, FORMER PRESIDENT, CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSEL FORUM THRISSUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT THEVARUPARAMBIL, KARALAM.P.O., IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

7 JIMMY KORAH, FORMER PRESIDENT, CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSEL FORUM ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, RESIDING AT POLAYIL THEKKEDAM, PALLIKKOTTUMMA, RAMANKARI.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶13

8 K.GOPALAN, FORMER PRESIDENT, CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSEL FORUM KANNUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KOROL HOUSE, PANNIYANNUR, AMSOM DESAM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADVS. THOMAS ABRAHAM SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN

WP(C) No.22524/2019

: 2 :

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶19

2 SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶20

3 SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶21

4 PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSEL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHAKKAD, TRIVANDRUM-695014.

¶22

SMT.SABEENA P ISMAIL-GP

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.22524/2019

: 3 :

JUDGMENT

The above captioned writ petition is preferred by the former Presidents of Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum of various districts seeking to call for the records leading to Exts.P3 and P6 orders and Ext.P5 communication and quash the same, to the extent it affects the right of the petitioners to get pension in accordance with the scale of pay under which they were appointed, by issuing a writ of certiorari. It further seeks to declare that the bar under Rule 15(4) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2005 (Kerala) denying pension has been rendered otiose by virtue of Ext.P3 order providing for pension to members of Statutory Commissions.

¶28

The short facts of the case is as follows: While practicing as lawyers in various district courts centres, the petitioners were selected and appointed as President of Consumer Disputes Forum. Thereafter, a tremendous change occurred to the Bar Council of India Rules made under the Advocates Act. Whereby restraining any person who held an office of judicial, administrative courts/tribunals/authorities from practicing as an

¶29

WP(C) No.22524/2019 : 4 :

¶30

Advocate before an officer equivalent or lower to the post occupied by them, which was brought into effect from 16.02.2008. Since the post held by them is treated as equivalent to the District Judge, that virtually stopping their practice after expiry of their term. Hence, sought for the pension and other benefits to them in par with the sitting judges or those who are retired as District Judges.

¶31

It is further contended that they being crossed the middle age it was practically impossible to commence practice before the Hon’ble High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On considering this aspect, Consumer Affairs Department of the State Government had favourably recommended for the demand for pension. Similarly, the 9^th Pay commission also recommended that, the presidents of the CDRF are entitled for all monetary benefits including pension presently enjoyed by the District Judges, in view of the prohibition under Rule 15(6) of the Consumer Protection Rules and also considering the amendment to Rule 7 of the Bar Council Rules. In that circumstances, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court by filing WP(C) No.9953/2014 seeking to set aside Rule 15(4) of Consumer Protection Rules, 2005 (Kerala) to the extent it affects their

¶32

WP(C) No.22524/2019 : 5 :

¶33

legitimate right to availing pensionery benefits and also for other legal entitlements. Later, that writ petition was withdrawn in the light of G.O.(P) No.175/2016/fin dated 28/11/2016, which is produced as Ext.P3. Ext.P3 prescribes a consolidated amount depending upon the years spent in the service between Rs.7000/and 10000/-.

¶34

The petitioner contended in the writ petition that as per Section 10(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the petitioner fallen within the category of persons qualified to be appointed as District Judge, the persons along with them two other categories also eligible to be appointed as the president of the Consumer Dispute Forum, i.e., sitting District Judges as well as retired District Judges. They were granted with pension and other benefits even though they commences their service afresh as president of the CDRF on their selection and appointment under Section 10(1)(a) of the Act. In such circumstances, the petitioners preferred Ext.P4 representation before the 1^st respondent detailing the predicament cast upon them after their tenure as presidents of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum of various districts.

¶35

WP(C) No.22524/2019

¶36

: 6 :

¶37

However, the 1^st respondent rejected the same as per

¶38

Ext.P5 only on the grounds that, it is not an administratively feasible option to fix a scale for retirement benefit according to the post held by the members of various statutory commission. Service in statutory commissions are for short periods and the persons who have volunteers for such service have already been honoured by Government with adequate pay and allowances. Sanctioning pensionery benefits to such large scale would place enormous financial burden on the Government. Hence the petitioners can be considered eligible for retirement benefit as per G.O.(P) No.175/2016/fin/dtd.28/11/2016 only and cannot be considered as a distinct group for granting other pensionery benefits.

¶39

It further asserts that under KSR Part III, only those Government employees with a qualifying service of atleast 10 years are eligible for minimum pension. However, in this case of retirement benefits, for the members of statutory commission, the persons with even two years of service are also made eligible for retirement benefits. Here the Government have extended a special consideration for persons who have served in the statutory

¶40

WP(C) No.22524/2019

¶41

: 7 :

¶42

commission and who do not receive any other pensions from the Government. The retirement benefits should disburse from the grant-in-aid fund allotted to every commission. Any increase in the scale of retirement benefits will cause enormous drain on the resources of these commissions and will mount the revenue expenditure of the State.

¶43

This being a denial of the request of the petitioners, the same was assailed in this writ petition. A counter affidavit was filed refuting the contentions raised in the writ petition whereby specifically states that, as per Rule 15 of the Kerala Consumer Protection Rules, 2005 under Sub clause 4, it is categorically stated that, the service of the presidents of a Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum shall not be counted for the purpose of pension. The grant of pension to the members (non judicial) of CDRF according to the number of years served, as per G.O.(P) No.175/ 2016/fin/dtd.28/11/2016, is a general scheme spanning all statutory commissions and can be considered as only a token of consideration extended by the Government.

¶44

Heard both the sides.

¶45

WP(C) No.22524/2019

¶46

: 8 :

¶47

It is an admitted fact that, the persons who are eligible

¶48

to be appointed as District Judge will be considered for the selection to the post of President of the District Forum under Rule 15(1) of the Kerala Consumer Protection Rules. On appointment, they are entitled for the scale of pay admissible to the District Judge plus allowances attached thereto. However, Rule 15 clause 4 denying pensionery benefit attached to the post of District Judges. Thereby the predicament faced by them after their tenure is that, by holding the post equivalent to a District Judge in the light of amendment carried out to the bar Council Rules will prevent them from practicing as lawyers before the

¶49

courts/tribunal/authorities equivalent or lower to the post, such officer last presided over. Thereby they are prevented and cannot set up a practice before the District Courts or other courts of similar or lower ranks. This will cause much hardships to them after the terms of 5 years. This is the circumstances in which after Ext.P3 they preferred representation before the Government detailing all their grievances.

¶50

However, the 1^st respondent without considering all the aspects pointed out by the petitioners rejected the same, which

¶51

WP(C) No.22524/2019 : 9 :

¶52

appears to be a non application of mind. Though there is specific provision with respect to barring pensionery benefits to the persons appointed as President of the Consumer Disputes District Forums under Rule 15(4), the predicament which would have been faced by them after the term of 5 years would have borne in mind while discarding their demand in the light of Ext.P3. The matter being policy matter of Government, I am not venturing to interfere with it. However it would be appropriate if the Government would have addressed their grievance in Ext.P4 in compassion and revise Ext.P3 benefits. In such circumstances, particularly considering the service rendered by them which was equivalent that to a District Judge Ext.P3 requires an appropriate revision.

¶53

Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P5 is to be set aside and directed the 1^st respondent to reconsider Ext.P4 application in the light of the aforementioned discussion within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶54

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶55

Sd/- P.M. MANOJ JUDGE

ncd

WP(C) No.22524/2019

: 10 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22524/2019

¶60

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶61

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE RELEVANT RECOMMENDATION OF THE 9TH PAY COMMISSION.

¶62

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 CONTAINING DETAILS OF THE ALLOWANCES ATTACHED TO THE POST OF DISTRICT JUDGES. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (P)NO.175/2016/FIN DATED 28.11.2016. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.8.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES.

Jacob Stephen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jacob Stephen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasheed Ali Vs Beevi

K. Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Ravi Vs Santhi

The District Collector, Vs the Kerala State Commission for Minorities

The Secretary, Vs State of Kerala

Lasitha. K. Vs the Authorized Officer