Writ Petition No. 9868 of 2014. Case: Chandrakant B. Pandharpatte and Ors. Vs State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 9868 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ajit Kenjale i/by Rajesh Lachayya Dharap, Advs. and For Respondents: V.S. Gokhale, AGP |
| Judges | Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Revati Mohite Dere, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 14; Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 10(1)(a) |
| Judgement Date | September 11, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.
-
The Petitioners were the Presidents of the District Consumer Redressal Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the said Act"). The Petitioners completed two terms of five years as the President of a District Consumer Redressal Forum. The grievance in this Writ Petition is as regards the denial of the benefit of leave encashment to the Petitioners. On 10th July, 2015, this Court issued the notice for final disposal. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the Government Circular dated 8th August, 2007 shows that the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981 were applicable to the Presidents of the District Fora. He invited our attention to the contents of the said circular. He also pointed out that the Government Resolution dated 18th March, 2009 shows that the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979, the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 and the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 are applicable to the posts of the Members and Presidents of the District Fora constituted under the said Act. He pointed out the Government decision dated 15th October, 2007 (Exhibit-C to the Petition) which shows that the benefit of leave encashment was granted to Shri R.T. Patil, who was the President of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Akola. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners pointed out that the first Petitioner after completion of his first five year's term as the President was granted the benefit of leave encashment under the government decision dated 3rd May, 2008, a copy of which has been annexed to the Petition. The learned counsel pointed out that the first Petitioner was denied the same benefit after completion of his second tenure. He invited our attention to the stand taken by the State Government in letter dated 11th June, 2014 addressed to the Registrar of the Maharashtra State Consumer Redressal Commission. In the said letter, it was contended that the earlier decisions to grant the benefit of leave encashment to the Presidents of the District Fora were wrong. By the said letter, the Registrar of the State Commission was called upon to produce the policy decision taken with the concurrence of the Finance Ministry of the State Government to permit grant of leave encashment. He invited our attention to Karnataka Consumer...
To continue reading
Request your trial