Justice Devendra Prasad Singh Choudhary who the judge of Patna High Court during December 29, 1998-March 28, March 2002 is no more. He also served as the President of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was established as per Bihar Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There will be a full court reference on October 16, 2025 to condole of demise Justice Choudhary. The notice in this regard was issued by the Registrar General by the order of the 46th Chief Justice Pavankumar Bhimappa Bajanthri who is due to retire on October 22, 2025.
In March 2002, Justice D.P.S. Choudhary had rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Mudrika Prasad, a former district judge who was accused of torturing his daughter-in-law for dowry. He was also accused of attempt to murder her. Her health condition was such that she had to be admitted in Patna Medical College Hospital and AIIMS. Justice Choudhary had observed that such a crime was "heinous" and deserved no mercy.
As part of division bench with 30th Chief Justice of Patna High Court, Ravi Sswarop Dhawan, Justice Choudhary heard a Public Interest Litigation concerning Mithilesh Kumar, a Jharkhand cadre IAS officer, serving as secretary to the Governor. He had called for the records of the governor secretariat, state government and the union government.
In another instance, a division bench comprising the Chief Justice Dhavan, both took suo moto cognisance of the deterioration of education in Bihar and converted it into a PIL. The bench has issued notice to the secretaries of primary secondary and higher education departments and asked them to file notice.
The same division bench had heard a PIL filed by Binod Kumar Yadvendu and others rebuked the state government for hindering the CBI inquiry into the agricultural scam.
In a reversal of role after retirement as judge of the High Court, when Justice Choudhary became the President of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, he was constrained to approach the High Court as a petitioner.
In Justice Devendra Prasad Singh Choudhary vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. C.W.J.C No. 1642 of 2003, Justice Narayan Roy of the High Court delivered the judgement dated April 1, 2003. He concluded:'''16. In the result, this application is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the allowances to the petitioner including house rent allowance, sumptuary allowance and other perquisites like LTC, medical re-imbursement facility etc. besides his salary and dearness allowance with effect from the date the petitioner assumed charge of the office, as were being paid to the petitioner as a Judge of Patna High Court just before his retirement minus the amount of pension from the date of his appointment as President of the Commission. They are further directed to issue the pay slip accordingly forthwith.''
In the penultimate para of his judgement, Justice Roy observed that the petitioner under the notification of appointment, was made entitled to salary, allowances and other perquisites, which were available to him as a Judge of the High Court immediately before his retirement minus the amount of pension dehors the provisions of the Rules, and, therefore, he was entitled to the admissible allowances, which were paid to him just before his retirement as a High Court Judge. He added: "Having heard counsel for the parties at length and considering the rival contentions of the parties and in view of the legal propositions, noticed above, I am of the opinion that the action of the State Government in denying the admissible allowances and perquisites to the petitioner is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory and the same is also hit by the principles of Promissory Estoppel."
The writ petitioner, the retired High Court Judge was functioning as President of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna had approached the High Court for issuance of direction upon the respondents to maintain parity in payment of salary, dearness allowance, house rent allowance, sumptuary allowance and other perquisites like LTC, medical facility, etc. to him, as is paid to a sitting Judge of a High Court and as was being paid to the petitioner as Judge of Patna High Court minus pension from the date of his appointment as President of the Commission. The petitioner retired as Judge of Patna High Court on March 28, 2002 and thereafter he was appointed as President of the Commission vide notification, as contained in memo no. 1738 dated April 18, 2002. At the time of his retirement, the petitioner was receiving substantive pay of Rs. 26,000/- plus dearness allowance thereon, house rent allowance of Rs. 10,000, sumptuary allowance of Rs. 2000/- and special pay of Rs. 180/-, which would be evident from his pay slip, issued by the Accountant General, Bihar,. However, after his appointment as President of the Commission a pay slip of reduced amount of allowance was issued to him, whereby and whereunder his house rent allowance has been reduced to Rs. 3900/- as against Rs. 10,000/- and sumptuary allowance of Rs. 2000/- was not mentioned in the pay slip.
Vinod Kumar Kanth, counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner since was a retired High Court Judge, he was entitled to get his pay and other allowances, which were being paid to him as a Judge of Patna High Court minus the amount of pension from the date of his appointment as President of the Commission, but, on the contrary, a reduced pay slip in allowances was issued by the Accountant General contrary to the terms and conditions of his appointment as President of the Commission,. He pointed out that the notification, issued by the State Government appointing the petitioner as President of the Commission specifically mentioned that the petitioner will get his salary and allowances as were last paid to him at the time of his retirement as a High Court Judge minus the amount of pension, and, therefore, the pay slip reducing his allowances was highly unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. The counsel also drew Court's attention to the pay slips issued to some of the retired High Court Judges functioning as Chairman, Bihar State Law Commission, and Chairman of Siwan Pratapur Inquiry Commission, showing that Justice Om Prakash and Justice Vidyanand, similarly situated to the petitioner, were getting the allowances in full, as were being paid to them before their retirement as High Court Judges. The counsel, therefore, submitted that at the face of the pay slips, issued to Justice Om Prakash and Justice Vidyanand, the pay slip, issued in the name of the petitioner was discriminatory, arbitrary and not sustainable in law
Advocate Kanth stated that in the similarly situated circumstance, a Bench of Patna High Court in Prem Shankar Sahay vs. The State of Bihar C.W.J.C No. 5040 of 1989 held that the petitioner being a retired High Court Judge would be entitled to get all the admissible allowances besides salary and dearness allowance, as were being paid to him as a High Court Judge.
Two sets of counter affidavits were filed-one on behalf of the State of Bihar and the other on behalf of the Accountant General, Bihar and Jharkhand.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it was stated that the petitioner was appointed as President of the Commission under the Bihar State Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 and there was no provision of allowances except T.A and other allowances, as prayed for by the petitioner, were never asked for by his predecessor, and, therefore, on demand being made by the petitioner opinion of the Government of India and National Commission was called for, which was awaited.
In other counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondents, it was stated that the salary and other allowances of the petitioner would be governed under the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and he would be entitled to pay and allowances equivalent to the same, which were paid to his predecessor, Justice Aditya Narayan Chaturvedi and Justice Bimalendu Narain Sinha.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General with reference to his counter affidavit submitted that pay slip was issued to the petitioner as per the pay chart prepared by the State of Bihar, whereas counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar submitted that necessary payment of allowance was being paid to the petitioner as per the Rules.
The High Court's judgement recorded that the notification appointing the petitioner as President of the Commission entitled the petitioner to get his salary and allowances last drawn by him as a High Court Judge minus the amount of pension payble to him. ''By necessary implication, it means that the allowances, which were being paid to the petitioner as a High Court Judge would not be reduced and he would be entitled to get all admissible allowances, as were paid to him as a High Court Judge. The pay slips, issued to Justice Om Prakash and Justice Vidyanand, retired High Court Judges of Patna High Court, who were holding the posts of Chairmen of the Bihar State Law Commission and Siwan Pratapur Inquiry Commission respectively, were being paid to them, which were being paid to them as High Court Judges. The petitioner appeared to be similarly situated to Justice Om Prakash and Justice Vidyanand, and, therefore, he should be treated equally with them as two equals cannot be treated unequally and in this view of the matter, they pay slip, issued to the petitioner reducing his allowances must be held to be unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory.''
The order passed by a Bench of the High Court, in case of Prem Shankar Sahay (supra), had held that the writ petitioner would be entitled to get all the admissible allowances besides salary and dearness allowance, as were being paid to him as a High Court Judge.
Justice Roy observed: ''Noticing the facts, as enumerated above, I am of the view that a retired High Court Judge, if appointed to head a Commission or as a member of a Commission would be entitled to all admissible allowances payable to a High Court Judge besides his salary and dearness allowance and a pay slip would be required to be issued in consonance with the last pay slip, issued to a High Court Judge. I am further of the view that the petitioner, who is a retired Judge of the High Court, was required to be treated at par with two other Judges of this Court, namely, Justice Om Prakash and Justice Vidyanand, who are holding the posts of Chairmen of different Commissions, referred to above, and merely because the predecessor of the petitioner had not claimed for the admissible allowances payable to them as High Court Judges, it will not operate as estoppel for payment of admissible allowances and other perquisites to the petitioner, as were being paid to him as a High Court Judge. The law is now well settled that where a retired High Court Judge is employed without setting out conditions of employment, the Judge would be entitled to same emoluments (salary, dearness allowance etc.), as was being paid to him at the time of his retirement.''
In this connection, Justice Roy relied on Court's decisions in made in the cases of Justice S.D Singh, (1986 PLJR, 1), Justice U.C Sharma, (1988 PLJR, 168) and Justice S.K Choudhuri (1989 PLJR, 603), to observe: ''Since the law on the question has been set at rest, as referred above, 'the State Government was not expected to discriminate the case of the petitioner arbitrarily and unreasonably.''
Justice Roy recollected that a similar question had fallen for consideration before a Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in case of Justice P.N Nag vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2003) 1 Consumer Law Decision Reports, 7(HP)], wherein Justice P.N Nag was discriminated in payment of the admissible allowances payable to a High Court and a Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the discrimination/classification made in case of the petitioner was neither reasonable nor rational and such action was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. It also held that where once the State decided to grant benefit of revised scale to some of the Judges, who were re-employed, then there could be no rationale to deny such benefits to similarly placed re-employed Judge.
Besides Vinod Kumar Kanth, Ritesh Kumar, Ram Vinay Sharma, Pushkar Narain Shahi, K.P.Yadav and Harendra Prasad Singh were counsels in the case.
P.S.:Since December 2022, Justice Sanjay Kumar, a retired judge of the Patna High Court, is the head of the Bihar State Consumer Redressal Commission. His appointment was recommended by the Appointments Committee. Prior to Justice Kumar, retired judges of the High Courts like Justice S.K. Sinha, Justice Samrendra P. Singh, Justice S. C. Jha and P.N. Yadav headed this Commission.
At present, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) and Presidents and Members in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (District Commissions) are appointed as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and 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. As per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and 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, Directorate of Consumer Protection, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Bihar, Patna invites online applications from eligible candidates, who are citizens of India, for the appointment against posts of Members in the State Commission and President and Members in the District Commissions in the State of Bihar. Detailed guidelines for filling in the online application are displayed on the website of Department of Food and Consumer Protection at https://state.bihar.gov.in/fcp.
No comments:
Post a Comment