JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, who had been appointed as President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sikar while he was still a Member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and is functioning as a President of the Forum has filed this writ petition challenging the orders dated 9/12/1996 (Annex-4) and 1.4.6.1996"(Annex. 5), by which the respondent-State of Rajasthan has passed an order deducting the salary and total emoluments of the petitioner. The reason for such deduction is based on the logic that the petitioner having retired as a Judicial Officer and thereafter continuing as President of the Consumer Forum, amounts to reappointment and, hence, after superannuation from the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS. for short) the petitioner would be entitled to the salary and emoluments according to Rule 337 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. 1951. The question, therefore, which requires determination in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for the salary and emoluments payable to a full time President of a District Consumer Forum as per Section 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Rule 3(1) and (6) of the Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987 or he is entitled for the salary and allowances in terms of Rule 337 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. 2. In order to decide this core question, the case in its essential details are elaborated herein as under : 3. The petitioner while he was a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and was functioning as a District Judge was appointed as President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sikar, vide order dated 2.6.1994 by the Food and Civil Supply Department, Government of Rajasthan under the provision of Section 10(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioner was accordingly relieved by the Rajasthan High Court vide its order dated 18.6.1994 to join his posting as President of the District Consumer Forum, Sikar and accordingly the petitioner joined on the said post, on 18.61994. From then onwards, the petitioner is functioning continuously on the said post till date. The petitioner was accordingly relieved by the Rajasthan High Court vide its order dated 18.6.1994 to join his posting as President of the District Consumer Forum, Sikar and accordingly the petitioner joined on the said post, on 18.61994. From then onwards, the petitioner is functioning continuously on the said post till date. The further case of the petitioner is that under the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the appointment of President of Consumer Forum is for a term of five years, or upto the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, and after completion of the said period no person shall be eligible for reappointment according to the said provision: The petitioner was also appointed as President of the Forum, on similar terms and conditions. In so far as the salary and other allowances of the President and Members of the Forum are concerned, the State Government framed the Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987, which governs the terms and conditions of the President and Members of the District Forum relating to salary and other allowances and Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 envisages that the President of the District Forum shall receive the salary of the Judge of the District Court, if appointed on whole time basis., in order to be precise, the relevant rule is quoted herein as follows 13. Salary and other allowances and terms and conditions of the President and Member of the District Forum, Section 10(3) (1) The President of the District Forum shall receive the salary of the Judge of a District Court, if appointed on whole time basis or an honorarium of Rs. 1.50/- per day, if appointed on part time basis. Other members if sitting on whole time basis, shall receive a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 2,000/- per month and if sitting on part time basis a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 100/- per day for the sitting. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 6. The terms and conditions of the service of the President and Members of the District Forum shall not be varied to their disadvantage during their tenure of office." 4. The petitioner while he continued as President of the District Forum superannuated from the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service on 31.5.1995, on attaining the age of 00 years. The Pension Department of the Government of Rajasthan thereafter sanctioned gross pension of the petitioner at Rs. The petitioner while he continued as President of the District Forum superannuated from the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service on 31.5.1995, on attaining the age of 00 years. The Pension Department of the Government of Rajasthan thereafter sanctioned gross pension of the petitioner at Rs. 3,050/- and net amount of Rs. 2,034/- vide order dated 19.2.1994 on the plea that since the petitioner retired on 31.5.1995 from Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service he has become eligible to get pension of a retired Judicial Officer and, therefore, the salary and allowance of the period commencing from 1.6.1995 was ordered to be paid according to Rule 337 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and, accordingly, an order dated 19.2.1996, followed by another order dated 14.6.1996, was passed to the effect that the petitioner will be eligible to get the salary, allowance etc. with effect from the date of taking over charge on the post of President, District Forum after deduction of the pension from the last salary drawn as a member of RHJS dearness allowance and city compensatory allowance was also ordered to be paid on the basis of last salary drawn as a member of RHJS after deduction for the Government residence provided to the. petitioner. It was further laid down that officiating allowance, car allowance and other allowances shall not be paid to the petitioner. The net result of the two orders impugned has been that the petitioner's salary would he reduced which he is otherwise entitled as a full time member of the District Consumer forum which according to the petitioner's ground of challenge is in violation of Rule 3 of the Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987, which clearly lays. down that the President of the District Forum shall receive the salary of the Judge of a District Court appointed on a whole time basis or on honorarium of Rs. 150/- per day if appointed on part time basis. 5. It has, therefore, been submitted by the petitioner that the orders impugned are clearly illegal and arbitrary as the same are in violation of the clear provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the scheme of the Rules of 1987 regarding salary and emoluments payable to the President of a District Consumer Forum. 5. It has, therefore, been submitted by the petitioner that the orders impugned are clearly illegal and arbitrary as the same are in violation of the clear provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the scheme of the Rules of 1987 regarding salary and emoluments payable to the President of a District Consumer Forum. It has further been contended that the impugned order which directs payment of salary and allowances to the petitioner as per Rule 337 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as the same is applicable only in case of reappointment of a -pensioner. The petitioner was appointed as President of the District Forum while he was still in service of the Rajasthan Judicial Service and took over charge as a full time President of the District Forum on 18.6.1994 with a clear stipulation that he shall hold office for a term of five years or upto the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. Hence, it has been submitted that as per the terms and conditions of appointment, the petitioner has neither completed 5 years nor he has attained the age of 65 years. The petitioner will complete his term of five years from the date of taking over charge only on 17.6.19'I) and at that time the petitioner will be only 64 years old. The petitioner, thus, has been continuing as a full time member of District Forum as per Section 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Act and has been receiving the salary and other allowances as per Rule 3 of the Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987 and hence the computation of the salary under Rule 337 of the R.S.R., 1951 treating the petitioner as it retired judicial officer is illegal, arbitrary and, therefore, null and void. 6. Learned counsel Shri Rathore on behalf of the respondent, however, has contended but without much conviction that the petitioner having been reappointed is entitled to the salary and emoluments only as per Rule 337 of RSR, 1951 and has, thus, sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the State of Rajasthan. 7. 6. Learned counsel Shri Rathore on behalf of the respondent, however, has contended but without much conviction that the petitioner having been reappointed is entitled to the salary and emoluments only as per Rule 337 of RSR, 1951 and has, thus, sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the State of Rajasthan. 7. From the foregoing facts, arguments and counter arguments, it is quite clear that the petitioner has been appointed as a President of the District Consumer Forum while he was serving as District Judge and, thus, he sacrificed at least one year of his regular service as a District Judge in order to be able to join the District Consumer Forum, Sikar as its President, since the petitioner was due to retire as a District Judge in the year 1995, but in view of the offer made to him, in the year 1994, he quit the post as a District Judge on a clear understanding that he would be holding the post as full time President of the District Consumer Forum for a period of five years with all the admissible allowances apart from the salary. But besides this fact, another factor and a more weighty one, which goes in favour of the petitioner, is that the Consumer Protection Act itself envisages only two categories of President (1) on a full time basis and (2) on a part time basis. There is no third category laid down in the Act, Section 10(2) also specifies that thereafter the incumbent shall not he eligible for reappointment and the State Government has further framed Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987 relating to the salary and other allowances clarifying the terms and conditions of the Presidents and Member of the District Consumer Forum under Rule 3 of the said Rule,.as already quoted hereinabove, which lays down that the President of the District Forum shall receive the salary of the Judge of a District Court, if appointed on whole time basis or an honorarium of Rs. 150/- per day if appointed on part time basis and other perks if sitting on whole time basis shall receive a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 2,000/- per month and, if sitting on part time basis, a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 1(X)/- per day for the sitting. 150/- per day if appointed on part time basis and other perks if sitting on whole time basis shall receive a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 2,000/- per month and, if sitting on part time basis, a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 1(X)/- per day for the sitting. From this, it is sufficiently clear that the President of the District Forum is entitled to the salary of a Judge of the District meaning thereby of the District Judge and hence, the petitioner who is holding the post of the President of the District Consumer Forum cannot be made to receive the pension amount plus the balance salary of a Judge of a District Court. The rule clearly lays down that the President of the District Consumer Forum is entitled to the full salary payable to a Judge of a District Court and to interpret this rule so as to infer that the President would be entitled to his pension plus the balance amount of the salary of a District Judge amounts to twisted reading of rule in this regard, in my opinion, it may further be noted that sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 also clearly lays down that the terms and conditions of the service of the President and member of the District Consumer Forum shall not be varied to their disadvantage during the tenure of office, which also clearly protects the right of the petitioner since he has been receiving the full salary of the President of a District Consumer Forum ever since he joined it and an order deducting it by applying Rule 337 of the RSR, 1951 was passed only at a later stage on 19.2.1996 and 14.6.1996 completely ignoring sub-rule (ti) of Rule 3, referred to hereinabove. While the petitioner is functioning as a full time President of .the District Consumer Forum for a period of five years, which is going to expire only on 17.6.1999, the rules applicable to a retired District Judge cannot be applied to a full time president of the District Consumer Forum so as to justify the. impugned order to the effect that dearness allowance, city compensatory allowance and other allowances payable to the petitioner only on the salary after deducting the amount. of pension. impugned order to the effect that dearness allowance, city compensatory allowance and other allowances payable to the petitioner only on the salary after deducting the amount. of pension. I also find no justification in denying him officiating allowance, car allowance and other allowances by treating him a retired District Judge by applying Rule 337 of RSR, 1951, since the petitioner's appointment has been made in terms of a clear provision under the Consumer Protection Act regarding which there are clear rules pertaining to the salary and terms and conditions is also precluded from varying it to the disadvantage of the President during the tenure of his office. In my opinion, if the petitioner's appointment as a President of the Consumer Forum was, to be treated as a case of reappointment so as to apply Rule 337 of RSR, 1951, the same ought to have been disclosed to the petitioner at the time of offer of his appointment as a full time President of the District Consumer Forum while he was working as District Judge so that the petitioner could make a choice as to whether he was interested in joining as President of the Consumer Forum or was interested in continuing as a full-fledged District Judge. The petitioner having already served as a President of the Forum with full salary of a District Judge as per Rule 3 of the Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987, the same could not have been deducted by applying a fresh service condition in the midst of his tenure by applying Rule 337 of RSR, 1951. It is quite clear that the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 is a general rule governing all types of services in Rajasthan, whereas the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a special Act governing the terms and conditions of their tenure specifying their emoluments and other benefits. It is an established principles that a general Act of Rule cannot be allowed to prevail over a special Act or Rule, which in this case is Consumer Protection Act, 1980. 8. It is an established principles that a general Act of Rule cannot be allowed to prevail over a special Act or Rule, which in this case is Consumer Protection Act, 1980. 8. Attention of this Court has further been invited to a Division Bench decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reported in 1994(1) Consumer Protection Cases 203, Subhash Chandra v. Union of India , wherein the learned Judges of the said Court, inter alia, had been pleased to observe that the President of the District Forum and the State Commission appointed on whole time basis would not only be paid salary and allowances as such, but also should be given other perks respectively of the District Judges and Judges of the High Court. This had been rendered essential in order to maintain and uphold the status of the post to which they are appointed. In the instant case, the petitioner was not only President of the District Forum, but was also holding the post of a District Judge and had also foregone one year of his service as District Judge prior to his joining the post of the President of the Forum. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to the full salary of the President of the District Forum payable to a Judge of the District Court and, hence, the order that he would be entitled to the amount of pension plus the balance salary of a District Judge is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the two orders dated 19.2.1996 and 14.6.1996 as contained in Annx. 4 and 5 respectively to this writ petition are quashed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the full salary and allowances payable to the President of the District Forum which is equivalent to the Judge of a District Court and shall also be entitled to all other perks including officiating allowance, car allowance and other perks. The deduction for occupying Government residence will be made on the basis of the salary which will be payable and to which the petitioner is entitled to.The writ petitioner accordingly is allowed, but in the circumstances without costs. *******