Former Judge entitled to pension for service as President of Consumer Commission; Govt's executive orders valid.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the respondent, a former Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, was entitled to pension from the State Government for his service as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Court recognized the State Government's power to issue executive orders to fill gaps in rules, ensuring they are not inconsistent with statutory provisions. The appeal by the Accountant General was deemed maintainable, as the Accountant General has authority over audit and entitlement functions. However, a separate judgment highlighted the necessity of specific rules for pension grants and the inadmissibility of combining different services for pension calculation, leading to the matter being referred for further consideration.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to pension for service as President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
2. Maintainability of appeal by the Accountant General.
3. State Government's power to issue executive orders for pension in absence of specific rules.

Summary:

1. Entitlement to Pension for Service as President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission:
The respondent, a former Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, served as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The High Court determined that the service rendered by the respondent as President was pensionable based on an office order dated April 5, 2002, issued by the State Government. The Supreme Court examined whether the respondent was entitled to pension from the State for his service as President, considering the absence of specific statutory provisions or rules under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (1986 Act) and the Madhya Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 (State Rules).

The Court referred to the case of Justice P. Venugopal v. Union of India, emphasizing that a High Court Judge is entitled to pensionary benefits only under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (1954 Act) and not otherwise. It was held that the respondent's different services could not be clubbed for pension computation. However, the Court acknowledged the State Government's power to issue executive orders to fill gaps in the rules, provided such orders are not inconsistent with statutory provisions or existing rules.

2. Maintainability of Appeal by the Accountant General:
The respondent argued that the appeal by the Accountant General was not maintainable as he was not an "aggrieved person." The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the Accountant General, as an arm of the Comptroller and Auditor General, has the authority to monitor and control activities related to audit, accounts, and entitlement functions, including pension authorization. Therefore, the appeal was maintainable.

3. State Government's Power to Issue Executive Orders for Pension in Absence of Specific Rules:
The Court examined whether the State Government could issue an executive order making the service of the President, State Commission pensionable in the absence of specific rules. It was held that the executive power of the State, under Article 162 of the Constitution, extends to matters where the Legislature has the power to make laws. The Court concluded that the State Government could issue executive orders to fill gaps in the rules, provided such orders are not inconsistent with statutory provisions or existing rules.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the respondent was entitled to pension from the State Government for his service as President, State Commission, as per the terms and conditions of the appointment. The appeal by the Accountant General was dismissed. However, in a separate judgment, another judge disagreed, emphasizing the need for specific rules to grant pension and the inadmissibility of clubbing different services for pension computation. The matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for assignment to an appropriate bench due to the divergence of opinion.

---