Judgment :- The Chief Justice: This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Government of Pondicherry dated 21.8.2003. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 4.11.94 and thereafter was transferred to the Madras High Court, where he assumed office on 23.11.94, and continued as such till he attained the age of superannuation of 62 years on 16.12.2000. 3. After his retirement the petitioner, with his consent, was appointed as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry by the G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 16.10.2001 on part time basis. 4. It was alleged by the petitioner that under Section 16(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, the term of office of the President has to be 5 years or till attaining the age of superannuation of 67 years whichever is earlier, and the provision does not contemplate appointment on part time basis. The petitioner was appointed only for a period of 4 years on part time basis. 5. By G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 31.12.2001, the Pondicherry Consumer Protection Rules were amended to provide for payment to the President appointed on part time basis a consolidated honorarium of Rs.5,000/= per month plus Rs.500/= per day of sitting. In terms of Rule 6(2), the President is entitled to travelling allowance and daily allowance on official tour as admissible to a High Court Judge. The petitioner was also provided with a car for his official use. 6. By a communication dated 9.8.2002, the petitioner was advised that he will not be entitled for daily allowance and conveyance facilities upto Chennai. 7. The petitioner filed W.P.No.36094 of 2002 for quashing the order dated 9.8.2002, by which he was informed that he will not be entitled for daily allowance and conveyance facilities upto Chennai and he prayed for restoration of these facilities. He also filed W.P.No.36144 of 2002 in which he prayed for a writ of mandamus directing that he should be allowed to function on full time basis for a period of 5 years or till he attained the age of 67 years, whichever is earlier. 8. He also filed W.P.No.36144 of 2002 in which he prayed for a writ of mandamus directing that he should be allowed to function on full time basis for a period of 5 years or till he attained the age of 67 years, whichever is earlier. 8. It appears that incensed by the fact that the petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petitions, the Government of Pondicherry by an order dated 21.8.2003 has terminated the petitioner's service as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry. 9. The impugned order dated 21.8.2003 reads as follows:- "Whereas Thiru Justice Y.Venkatachalam, retired Judge, High Court, Madras, has been appointed, on his consent, as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry on part time basis vide Notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 16.10.2001 of the Chief Secretariat (CS&CA) Pondicherry; And whereas, subsequent to his assumption of charge as Chairman of the said State Commission with effect from 17.10.2001 the remuneration/honorarium payable to the President has been enhanced from Rs.2,000/= to Rs.5,000/= per month; And whereas, in the course of his functioning as Chairman of the State Commission, Thiru Justice Y.Venkatachalam not being satisfied with regard to extending of certain facilities to him by the Government, has chosen to seek legal remedy by filing two Writ Petitions No.36094/2002 and No.36144/2002 before the High Court, Madras in the year 2002; And whereas, his action of approaching the legal forum, has made explicit the existence/arising of some controversy between the President and the Government and on account of which, the Government department, who are parties before the State Commission, do reasonably apprehend that their interests in the matters before the State Commission would be very much jeopardized; Now, therefore, the Lieutenant Governor, Pondicherry being the appointing authority, taking into consideration his part time appointment and in order to dispel the allayed fear and anxiety on the part of the Government departments that, his continued functioning as the Chairman of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry, would be very much detrimental to the interest of the Government departments and also to preserve the dignity of the State Commission, hereby order that the part-time appointment of Thiru Justice Y.Venkatachalam, retired Judge of the High Court, Madras as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry shall stand terminated with immediate effect." 10. We are shocked and surprised to peruse the order dated 21.8.2003. We are shocked and surprised to peruse the order dated 21.8.2003. In this country, every citizen has a right to approach a Court of law, and the fact that he approached the Court of law can certainly not be treated as a misconduct. It seems that certain officers of the Pondicherry Government are unaware of even these simple and elementary matters. They have victimized the petitioner, who was an Honourable Judge of this Court, for his simple act of filing two writ petitions in this Court. 11. If this kind of attitude of the respondents is countenanced, then no one will feel free to file cases in Court and everybody will be afraid of approaching the Courts of law. We are deeply distressed at the attitude of the respondents in this case. The rule of law prevails in this country and everybody has a right to approach the Court of law. Moreover, the petitioner was not even heard before passing the impugned order and this is violative of the principles of natural justice. 12. On the facts of the case, we quash the impugned order dated 21.8.2003. The petitioner will be entitled to all his salary, allowances and monetary value of perquisites from the date of the impugned order till he attained the age of 67 years or completed the term of 5 years from the date of his appointment, whichever is earlier. This entire amount of money must be paid to him with interest at 10% per annum within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the authority concerned. The writ petition is allowed, but without any order as to costs.