Consumer Protection Rules| Appointment Order Can’t Be Separate Term Of Contract & Can’t Be Enforced Dehors The Existing Amended Rules: P&H High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that under the Consumer Protection Rules 2020, an appointment order cannot be said to be a separate term of contract and it cannot be enforced dehors the existing amended Rules.
The petitioner, in this case, was a retired Judge of the P&H High Court who preferred a writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the letter whereby the claim of the petitioner for granting the benefit of amended Rule 10 of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 was denied. The petitioner further sought direction to the respondents to make necessary modification in the order of appointment/notification issued in consonance with the amended Rule 10 of 2020.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma observed, “The interpretation of the Rule can also be understood by another example that suppose, if by way of an amendment, the age is decreased and tenure is also decreased, whether the concerned person holding the post can claim continuance of appointment on the basis of his original terms of appointment which provided for longer tenure or longer age as the case may be. The answer is “NO”. 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 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.”
Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh and Advocate Kushaldeep Kaur represented the petitioner while Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain and Advocate Neha Sharma represented the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner, who was a retired Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was appointed as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “State Commission”) on August 13, 2021. Her appointment order reflected that she was appointed as President of the State Commission in terms of the Rules of 2020 notified under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on a whole time basis for a term of four years, or till she attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, from the date she assumes the charge of the post. In terms of the said order, she joined on the said date and was presently holding the charge of the President of the State Commission.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the amendment made under the notification, a letter was sent by the Registrar of the State Commission to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs to make necessary amendments in the appointment order letter issued to the petitioner in conformity with the amendment made in the Rules of 2020. It was asserted that, however, the Government of Punjab vide a letter informed that the terms and conditions provided at the time of appointment of the petitioner shall remain in force and therefore, it refused to make the necessary amendments as prayed for.
The High Court in the above regard noted, “Applying the said principles, it is apparent 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. 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. 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 said that the earlier Rule will no more be in existence and similarly, the terms and conditions for office tenure of the President and Members, which were existing prior to notification dated September 15, 2022 shall have no further relevance or existence after coming into force of the terms of office of the President and Members as substituted by the new Rule 10.
“… even if the State Government does not issue the orders correcting the age of the President or the Member in terms of the new Rule 10, their terms shall be in accordance with new Rule 10”, also said the Court.
Furthermore, the Court concluded that the action of the respondents in interpreting Rule 10 of the Rules of 2022, as amended by the amendment is wholly misconceived and erroneous.
“Accordingly, it is held the terms of office of the President and Members, who are holding the post at present or who may hold the post in future, shall be governed by the amended Rule 10 of the Rules 2020. … it is directed that the respondents shall issue orders in accordance with Rule 10 of the Rules of 2020 as amended on 15.09.2022, and the petitioner, who is holding the post of the President of the State Commission, shall continue to hold office for a term of four years or upto the age of 67 years, whichever is earlier. The respondents would be obliged to allow her to continue on the post accordingly”, added the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition.
Cause Title- Justice Daya Chaudhary (Former Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court) v. Union of India and Others (Neutral Citation: 2023:PHHC:127789)
