Ravindra Pandurang Mhetras And ORS v. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Through Registrar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Digitally signed by BASAVRAJ GURAPPA PATIL Date:

2023.04.28 12:40:51 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BASAVRAJ GURAPPA PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1213 OF 2017 Ravindra Dattatray Mhetras & Ors.

..... Petitioners Vs.

State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission & Ors.

..... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 10105 OF 2018 Bhaskar Shripati Nagore & Ors.

..... Petitioners Vs.

State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission & Ors.

..... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2060 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10105 OF 2018 Mahadev Baburao Khedekar .... Applicant Bhaskar Shripati Nagore & Ors.

..... Petitioners Vs.

State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission & Ors.

..... Respondents Mr. Ajit J. Kenjale for the Petitioners Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for the State

CORAM:

S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED :

APRIL 27, 2023 P.C.

1.

The Petitioners are the retired Presidents of the District Consumer Forum. They claim the pay-scale as is provided under 1/3

Justice Shetty Commission and Justice Padmanabhan Commission. 2.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondents.

3.

After the present petitions are filed, the Respondent State has issued a Government Resolution dated 30th June 2018. Along with the Government Resolution, a list of the former Presidents of the District Forum have been enlisted and the amount of difference they are entitled to has also been depicted.

4.

The whole dispute revolves around the calculations. This Court would not be in a position to arrive at an appropriate figure considering the rival claims. The Government Resolution dated 30th June 2018 specifically states that as per Rule 3.1. of the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000, the Presidents of the State Commission are entitled to the pay-scale of District Judge Entry Level. The Petitioners also do not dispute that the Presidents of the District Form are entitled to the pay of the District Judge Entry Level. The question would be of the calculations. The State also can not go beyond the Government Resolutions issued by them accepting that the salary would be paid to the Presidents of the District Forum similar to the one paid to District Judge Entry Level. 5.

The Petitioners may individually give representations about 2/3

the amount which according to them is receivable commensurate to the salary of the District Judge Entry Level. The Respondent State and its authority shall verify the same and take decision with regard to the payments to be made to these persons.

6.

The salary of the District Judge Entry Level may not be a matter of dispute as such the same shall be considered by the Respondents while calculating the amounts payable to the Petitioners.

7.

The decision shall be taken by the Respondent State within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation from the Petitioners.

8.

Depending upon the decision taken by the Respondent, the parties shall take further steps.

9.

With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

10.

The Interim Application also stands disposed of. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 3/3