The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a petition filed by a retired judge seeking benefits of the 2022 Amendment to the Consumer Protection Rules held that the appointment on a particular post is essentially governed by the Rules and the appointment order cannot be said to be a separate term of the contract and it cannot be enforced dehors the existing amended Rules.
Brief Facts:
The former judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, who was appointed as the President of the State Consumer Forum filed the present petition after her request for garnting of benefits of the 2022 Amendment which would in effect extend her tenure was declined by the government stating that the terms and conditions provided at the time of her appointment will remain in force.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that as per Rule 3(1) of the amended act in 2020, a person could be appointed as a President who is or has been a Judge of the High Court and thus a sitting Judge or a retired Judge of the High Court is qualified for appointment, and the petitioner who retired as the judge after attaining the age of 62 years was appointed as a President of the State Commission on at the age of 62 years and 7 months, however, it was realized that usually, a retired High Court Judge is appointed and therefore, he or she can never complete 4 years’ tenure as he or she retired as a Judge at the age of 62 years and further it takes some time to be appointed after undergoing the selection process and thus an anomaly under the Rules was felt by the Rule making authorities and futher it was noticed that that the Members of the National Commission had the tenure/term up to the age of 67 years while, the age for the President of the State Commission is 65 years only after Rule 10 of the Rules of 2020 was amended. It was argued that once the amended Rule 10 has been substituted with that of the existing Rule 10, the conditions of the earlier Rule cannot be allowed to be enforced or continued.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that notification dated 15.09.2022 issued by the Central Government has come into force from the date of its publication and earlier Rule 10 stands already substituted and therefore, all the Presidents of the respective State Commissions would be governed by the terms of the office of President as laid down in the substituted Rule 10 of Rules 2020 and the President of the State Commission of Punjab would be entitled to hold office for a term of 4 years or up to the age of 67 years, whichever is earlier. It was further submitted that the amendment in question is prospective for future appointments alone and not for the existing appointments.
Observations of the court:
The court referred to the appointment order of the petitioner as the President of the State Commission and stated that the appointment of the petitioner had been made in terms of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 notified under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and thus, if the Act or the Rules are amended in favour or detriment to the conditions of service, the concerned person appointed in terms of the said amended Rules will be governed by the said Rules.
The court referred to the judgment in Zile Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others and stated that the present amendment is a substitution of the original Rule and it shall come into effect from the date it has come into force and thus, from the date it has come into force, the terms and conditions of the President and Members of the State Commission shall be governed by the substituted provisions and the earlier provision which provided the term of office to and on attaining the age of 65 years or four years on the post, whichever is earlier, is no more part of the statute.
The court further observed that the appointment of a particular post is essentially governed by the Rules and the appointment order cannot be said to be a separate term of contract and it cannot be enforced dehors the existing amended Rules and therefore, the tenure would relate to the Rule governing the post as amended from time to time, unless the language of the Rule provides otherwise.
The court concluded that the action of the respondents in interpreting Rule 10 of the Rules of 2022, as amended by amendment which has come into force w.e.f. 15.09.2022, is wholly misconceived and erroneous.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on her post.
Case Title: Justice Daya Chaudhary vs. Union of India and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Case No.: CWP-15239-2023 (O&M)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Kushaldeep Kaur and Mr. Gurminder Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Satya Pal Jain and Ms. Neha Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
