19 February 2024 Consumer Law >> Civil & Consumer Law  

A recent court case has clarified the salary entitlement for a president of a District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (District Commission) appointed from the quota of practicing advocates.

The Petitioner, a former advocate, was appointed President of the Jalor District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum for a second term. During his first term, he received a salary equivalent to that of a District Judge. However, upon reappointment, the question arose regarding the applicable salary rules.

The Petitioner argued that he should be considered a retired District Judge for salary purposes since he previously drew a judge's salary. Alternatively, he argued that the Model Rules of 2020 applied to his case.

The court rejected both arguments. The court pointed out that specific provisions in the Rajasthan Consumer Protection Rules of 2021 applied to the petitioner's situation.

Key takeaways from the judgement:

• The salary of a District Commission President appointed from the advocate quota is governed by Rule 3(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Consumer Protection (Salary, Allowances and Conditions of Service of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2021.
• This rule allows the State Government to determine the consolidated salary for such appointments.
• In this case, a notification dated 17.01.2022 set the consolidated salary at Rs. 60,000 per month.
• The Model Rules of 2020 do not apply when the State has its own rules in place.
• Appointment as a District Commission President does not revoke an advocate's license entirely; they are still considered a practicing advocate for the purposes of these rules.

The court directed the State to pay the Petitioner any outstanding salary arrears according to the notification and dismissed the Petition.