S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE Government of Karnataka being aggrieved by the order of the karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short, 'the tribunal'), dated 27-4-2001 passed in Application No. 2273 of 2000, has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE above application was filed by the respondent herein, seeking quashing of Annexure-J bearing No. FCS 146, whereby and whereunder, his request for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him, having undergone Angioplasty and for a direction to the State Government to reimburse that medical expenses with interest, was refused. The application was opposed by the State Government. However, the tribunal allowed the application and directed the State Government to reimburse the expenses incurred by the respondent by passing appropriate order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Hence this writ petition by the aggrieved Government of karnataka and its Authority. ( 3 ) THE background facts leading to the filing of the application before the Tribunal, be noted first. The respondent herein is a retired District judge and he retired as a District Judge having attained the age of superannuation in the year 1996. Later, in the year 1998 he was appointed as the President of District Consumer Forum, Kolar by the state Government vide its order dated 5-8-1998 and he reported for duty as the President of that Forum on 10-8-1998. While serving as President of the District Consumer Forum, Kolar, the respondent underwent angioplasty in Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology, Bangalore incurring expenses of Rs. 80,443/- in the year 1999. The respondent raised demand before the State Government that he should be reimbursed a sum of Rs. 80,443/-, the money he spent on heart surgery and treatment, in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Government Servants' (Medical attendance) Rules, 1963 (for short, 'the Rules' ). The demand of the respondent was refused by the State Government vide its order dated 28-3-2000 marked as Annexure-J produced before the Tribunal, on the ground that the respondent cannot be regarded as a 're-employed government Servant' in order to entitle him to seek reimbursement in terms of the Rules. According to the Government, since the respondent is not a 're-employed Government Servant' as denned under sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of the Rules, he is not entitled to seek reimbursement. According to the Government, since the respondent is not a 're-employed Government Servant' as denned under sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of the Rules, he is not entitled to seek reimbursement. ( 4 ) THE respondent being aggrieved by the above order of the government, filed Writ Petition No. 26135 of 2000 in this Court. Subsequently, that writ petition stood transferred to the Tribunal. On such transfer, it was treated as Application No. 2273 of 2000 (T ). ( 5 ) THE application was opposed by the State Government by filing a detailed reply statement, in which it was primarily contended that the respondent, on his appointment as the President of the District consumer Forum, Kolar with effect from 10-8-1998, could not be regarded as a "re-employed Government Servant" so as to attract the provisions of the Rules. It was further contended that even in terms of the Consumer Protection (Karnataka) Rules, 1988 framed by the government of Karnataka in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 also, he is not entitled to reimbursement. The Tribunal, however, having opined that the respondent is a 're-employed Government Servant', he is entitled to the benefit of the Rules, allowed the application and directed reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the respondent by undergoing Angioplasty at Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology, Bangalore. ( 6 ) WE have heard Sri V. Y. Kumar, learned Government Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Ram Bhat, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent and perused the order of the Tribunal. Admittedly, the respondent retired in the year 1996 as a District Judge having attained the age of superannuation and subsequently, he was appointed as a president of District Consumer Forum, Kolar in the year 1998 and he reported for duty in that capacity with effect from 10th August, 1998. The respondent was appointed under Section 10 (1-A) of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act' ). Sub-section (1-A) of Section 10 of the Act reads as follows:"10 (1-A) Every appointment under sub-section (1) shall be made by the State Government on the recommendation of a selection Committee consisting of the following, namely.- (i) the President of the State Commission-Chairman, (ii) the Secretary, Law Department of the State-Member, (iii) Secretary, in charge of the Department dealing with consumer affairs in the State-Member". Under sub-section (1-A) of Section 10, every appointment under sub-section (1) is required to be made by the State Government on the recommendation of the Selection Committee consisting of (a) The president of the State Commission being the Chairman, (b) Secretary, law Department as a member, and (c) Secretary in charge of the department belonging to the Consumer Forum in the State as another member. Sub-section (3) of Section 10 reads thus:"10 (3) The salary or honorarium and other allowances payable to, and the other terms and conditions of service of the members of the District Forum shall be such as may be prescribed by the state Government". ( 7 ) THE Government of Karnataka, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act has framed the Consumer protection (Karnataka) Rules, 1988 (for short, 'the Consumer Rules' ). Under Rule 3, salaries and other allowance and terms and conditions of the service of the President and other members of the District Forum have been prescribed. Rule 3 of the Consumer Protection Rules reads as under:" (1) The President of the District Forum shall receive the salary of the District Judge if appointed on whole time basis or honorarium of rupees Two hundred per day if appointed on part-time basis. Other members, if appointed on whole time basis, shall receive a consolidated honorarium of rupees Three thousand per month and if appointed on part-time basis, shall receive a consolidated honorarium of rupees One hundred and fifty per day of sitting. (2) The President and the members of the District Forum shall be entitled for such travelling allowance and daily allowance on official tour as are admissible to the Officer of Category 1 of the state Government. (3) The salary, honorarium and other allowances shall be defrayed out of the consolidated fund of the State". ( 8 ) IT is true that admittedly, the respondent 1 has undergone angioplasty in the Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology at Bangalore while serving as the President of District Consumer Forum, Kolar. There is also no seiious dispute of the fact that he had incurred a sum of Rs. 80,443/- towards surgery and medical expenses. ( 8 ) IT is true that admittedly, the respondent 1 has undergone angioplasty in the Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology at Bangalore while serving as the President of District Consumer Forum, Kolar. There is also no seiious dispute of the fact that he had incurred a sum of Rs. 80,443/- towards surgery and medical expenses. It is not the argument of the learned Government Advocate that even if the respondent could be regarded as a "re-employed Government Servant" within the meaning of that term as defined under the Rules, he is not entitled to seek reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him in terms of the Rules. It is the specific contention of the learned Government Advocate that, on his appointment as the President of the District Consumer Forum, kolar, the respondent could not be regarded as a "re-employed government Servant" and, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of the Rules. On the other hand, it is the contention of Sri Ram Bhat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent that notwithstanding the fact that the respondent, after his retirement as a district Judge on attaining the age of superannuation, was appointed as the President of District Consumer Forum, Kolar he should be regarded as 'a retired Government Servant' for the purpose of application of the rules. Sri Ram Bhat would seek to support his submission by drawing our attention to certain observations made by the Apex Court in case of m. S. Chawla and Others v State of Punjab and Another. ( 9 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsels for the parties, a short question that arises for consideration is whether the respondent, on his appointment as the President of the District Consumer Forum, Kolar could be regarded as a 'retired Government Servant'. If the answer to this question is in the positive, it is trite, the respondent would be entitled to seek reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him, towards the costs of Angioplasty and post-medicare in terms of the rules. On the other hand, if the answer to the question is in the negative, it is trite, he should fail and his application is liable to be dismissed. ( 10 ) THE question that arises for decision need not detain us for long. On the other hand, if the answer to the question is in the negative, it is trite, he should fail and his application is liable to be dismissed. ( 10 ) THE question that arises for decision need not detain us for long. The Consumer Protection Act is a Code in itself with regard to the appointment to the post of President and other members of the District consumer Forum. It is not that only a retired District Judge or a serving district Judge could be appointed as a President of a District Consumer forum. Even a member of the bar who is eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of District Judge could be appointed to the post of President of the District Consumer Forum. Once such appointment is made in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act, the incumbent becomes a Statutory Authority. Therefore, the President of a District consumer Forum could not be treated as a 're-employed Government servant'. We also find force in the contention of the learned Government advocate that the application filed by the respondent before the tribunal is not maintainable, because, the respondent on his appointment as the President of the District Consumer Forum, Kolar could not be regarded as a servant under the State. The application is not maintainable in terms of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals act, 1985. In forming this opinion, we are influenced by the fact that under the Consumer Rules, the pay and salary paid to the President and other members of the Consumer Forum are required to be debited to the consolidated fund of the State. Further, it needs to be noticed that the payment of salary and allowances to the President and other members of the District Consumer Forum is covered by the Statutory Rules framed by the Government of Karnataka, in exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act. The payment of salary and allowances to the President and members of the District consumer Forum is an occupied field. We have perused the Consumer protection Rules, 1988. The liability of the State Government to reimburse medical expenses incurred by a President of a District consumer Forum could not be traced with reference to any of the provisions of those Rules even by implication. We have perused the Consumer protection Rules, 1988. The liability of the State Government to reimburse medical expenses incurred by a President of a District consumer Forum could not be traced with reference to any of the provisions of those Rules even by implication. ( 11 ) SUB-RULE (3) of Rule 3 states that the salary, honorarium and other allowances shall be defrayed out of the consolidated fund of the state. The term "other allowances", occurring in sub-rule (3) would, in the context, include only travelling allowance and daily allowance, to which reference is made in sub-rule (2) and not any other allowances. It may be that the State Government in fairness would have enacted a provision in the Consumer Rules requesting the Government to reimburse medical expenses incurred by Presidents of the District consumer Forums. But, it is not the function of the Court to fill in the gap in the Consumer Rules. The Court cannot direct reimbursement of the medical expenses though the Statutory Rules do not provide for the same. In conclusion, we are left with no option but to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. ( 12 ) WE, accordingly allow the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 27-4-2001 and dismiss the Application No. 2273 of 2000. No costs. ( 13 ) WE, however, direct that this order shall not come in the way of the respondent seeking reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him under any other provisions of law or contract between the parties, de hors the Consumer Protection Rules. --- *** --- .