JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.- Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent No.2 issued notification No. FDS-B(2)-1/2005 dated 12.7.2005 appointing the petitioner as President of Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. He assumed the office of the President on 5.10.2005. He made a detailed representation on 25.10.2007 to his Excellency the Governor of Himachal Pradesh against the terms and conditions of his appointment being contrary to rules as his pension was being deducted without any authority of law. The representations made by the petitioner from time to time were rejected on 30.3.2009 and the same was conveyed to the petitioner on 9.4.2009. Petitioner has assailed the issuance of Annexures P-9 and P-10 dated 9.4.2009 and 30.3.2009, respectively and has also sought the issuance of writ of mandamus to amend the terms and conditions enumerated in the notification dated 12.7.2005 by bringing them in consonance with amended rule 13 of the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988. He has also prayed for the issuance of directions to the respondents not to deduct the pension from his salary, allowances and perquisite and also to pay the petitioner illegally deducted pension from 5.10.2005 with interest @ 18% per annum. 2. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel has vehemently argued that the issuance of Annexure-10 dated 30.3.2009 is against the basic spirit of rule 13 of the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 amended on 13.10.2003. He has argued that the action of the respondents to deduct the pension of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He then contended that on the basis of the plain and literal construction of rule 13 amended on 13.10.2003, the pension of his client could not be deducted. He further contended that though the opinion of the Law Department may not be final, but it has great persuasive value and the same could not be over looked by the Finance Department. He lastly contended that respondent No.1 has not applied its independent mind and has only followed the decision of respondent No.2. 3. Mr. R. K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the issuance of Annexure P-10 dated 30.3.2009. He then contended that there is no illegality in the action of the respondents whereby petitioner’s pension has been deducted by relying upon Annexures R-1 and R-2. 3. Mr. R. K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the issuance of Annexure P-10 dated 30.3.2009. He then contended that there is no illegality in the action of the respondents whereby petitioner’s pension has been deducted by relying upon Annexures R-1 and R-2. He further contended that rule 13 of the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 has been amended to bring it in conformity with rule 11 of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. He lastly contended that the opinion of the Law Department is advisory in nature and not binding upon the State Government. 4. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. In order to decide the matter effectively, it will be necessary to take note of salient features of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Rules framed the reunder as well as the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protect Rules, 1988 as amended from time to time. The dictionary clause i.e. section 2 (jj) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines the expression “Member” as under: 6. The composition of State Commission is stipulated under section 16 of the Act, which reads thus: “Member” includes the President and a member of the National commission or a State Commission or a District Forum, as the case may be.” “16. Composition of the State Commission.- (1) Each State Commission shall consist of (a) a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court, appointed by the State Government, who shall be its President: [Provided that no appointment under this clause shall be made except after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. (b) not less than two, and not more than such number of members, as may be prescribed, and one of whom shall be a woman, who shall have the following qualifications, namely:— (i) be not less than thirty-five years of age; (ii) possess a bachelors degree from a recognised university; and (iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration: Provided that not more than fifty per cent, of the members shall be from amongst persons having a judicial background. Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, the expression "persons having judicial background" shall mean persons having knowledge and experience for at least a period of ten years as a presiding officer at the district level court or any tribunal at equivalent level: Provided Further that a person shall be disqualified for appointment as a member if he— (a) has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which, in the opinion of the State Government, involves moral turpitude; or (b) is an undischarged insolvent; or (c) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or (d) has been removed or dismissed from the service of the Government of a body corporate owned or controlled by the Government; or (e) has, in the opinion of the State Government, such financial or other interest, as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions as a member; or (f) has such other disqualifications as may be prescribed by the State Government.] [(1A) Every appointment under sub-section (1), shall be made by the State Government on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of he following members, namely:— (i) President of the State Commission Chairman; (ii) Secretary of the Law Department of the State Member; (iii) Secretary incharge of the Department dealing with Consumer Affairs in the State Member: Provided that where the President of the State Commission is, by reason of absence or otherwise, unable to act as Chairman of the Selection Committee, the State Government may refer the matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court for nominating a sitting Judge of that High Court to act as Chairman. (1B) (i) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof. (ii) A Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as the President may deem fit. (1B) (i) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof. (ii) A Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as the President may deem fit. (iii) If the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority, but if the members are equally divided, they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and make a reference to the President who shall either hear the point or points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or more or the other members and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members who have heard the case, including those who first heard it.] (2) The salary or honorarium and other allowances payable to, and the other terms and conditions of service of the members of the State Commission shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government: [Provided that the appointment of a member on whole-time basis shall be made by the State Government on the recommendation of the President of the State Commission taking into consideration such factors as may be prescribed including the work load of the State Commission,] [(3) Every member of the State Commission shall hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of sixty-seven years, whichever is earlier: Provided that a member shall be eligible for reappointment for another term of five years or up to the age of sixty-seven years, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that he fulfils the qualifications and other conditions for appointment mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1) and such re-appointment is made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee: Provided Further that a person appointed as a President of the State Commission shall also be eligible for re-appointment in the manner provided in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of this section: Provided Also that a member may resign his office in writing under this hand addressed to the State Government and on such resignation being accepted, his office shall become vacant and may be filled by appointment of a person possessing any of the qualifications mentioned in sub-section (1) in relation to the category of the member who is required to be appoint under the provisions of subsection (1A) in place of the person who has resigned. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3), a person appointed as the President or as a member, before the commencement of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002, shall continue to hold such office as President or member, as the case may be, till the completion of his term.] 7. It is clear from the language employed in sub section (2) of section 16 of the Act that the salary or honorarium and other allowances payable to, and the other terms and conditions of service of the members of the State Commission shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government. The Central Government has framed the Rules under sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Act. Rule 11 dealing with the salary, honorarium and other allowances of the President and members of the National Commissioner reads thus: “11. Salaries, honorarium and other allowances of the President and members of the National Commission. (1) (1) The President of the National Commission shall be entitled to salary, allowances and other perquisites as are available to a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court. Salaries, honorarium and other allowances of the President and members of the National Commission. (1) (1) The President of the National Commission shall be entitled to salary, allowances and other perquisites as are available to a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court. (1-A) The other members of the National Commission appointed on whole-time basis shall be entitled to the following honorarium and other allowances with effect from the 1st day of April, 2006, namely:- (a) the members shall be paid twenty-three thousand rupees per month by way of honorarium: Provided that the members, who are retired Judges of the High Courts or retired Secretaries to the Government of India shall have the option to either receive consolidated honorarium of twenty-three thousand rupees per month or receive remuneration of last pay drawn less pension; (b) a woman who has not held an office of profit earlier, on appointment as a member shall be entitled to a pay in the scale of Rs 24050-26000 per month along with other benefits; (c) the members shall be provided with Government accommodation or receive house rent allowance of eight thousand rupees per month in lieu thereof; (d) the members shall be paid conveyance allowance at the rate of ten thousand rupees per month, if no chauffeur driven government vehicle is provided in which event one hundred fifty litres of petrol shall be supplied or the price there for shall be paid; (e) the members shall be entitled to one thousand free calls for the telephone installed at their residence, with STD and ISD facilities; and (f) the members shall be entitled to fifteen days casual leave in a year.] (2) [The members] shall be entitled to travelling and daily allowances on official tours at the same rates as are admissible to Group A Officer of the Central Government. [(2A) ] (3) The honorarium or the salary, as the case may be, and other allowances shall be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund of India.” 8. The State Government has also framed the Rules under sub-section (2) of section 30 called “the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988”. Part-III of these rules deals with the State Commission. Rule 13 thereof reads thus: “13. Salary, honorarium and other allowances of the President and members of the State Commission. The State Government has also framed the Rules under sub-section (2) of section 30 called “the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988”. Part-III of these rules deals with the State Commission. Rule 13 thereof reads thus: “13. Salary, honorarium and other allowances of the President and members of the State Commission. – (1) Where the President of the State Commission is a sitting Judge of the High Court, he shall enjoy all the benefits which he should have enjoyed as sitting Judge of the High Court. Where the President is not a sitting Judge of the High Court, he shall receive a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 7,000/- per month if appointed on whole-time basis or last pay drawn by him minus pension granted to him or an honorarium of Rs. 300/- per day if appointed on part-time basis. Other members, if appointed on whole time basis shall receive a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 1,500/-per month or if appointed on part-time basis a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 250/- per day for the sitting. Provided that a member shall be eligible to any pension granted to him by the Government or any authority but honorarium plus pension shall not exceed the last pay drawn. (2) The President and the members shall also be entitled to semi-furnished accommodation. (3) The President and the members shall be entitled to traveling and daily allowance on official tours at the same rates as are admissible to the higher Grade-I Officer of the State Government. (40 The honorarium or the salary, as the case may be, and other allowances shall be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund of the State Government.” 9. The detailed procedure required to be gone into before the amendment of the Rules was undertaken by the State Government. The Administrative Department with a view to obtain concurrence of Finance Department had observed as under: “The circumstances which necessitated the proposed amendment in the rules ibid have been explained at Ns/75-77. Before the matter is placed before the CMM F.D. may be requested to concur in the proposal at earliest as the matter relates to the compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, H.P.” 10. The Administrative Department supplied the requisite information and ultimately it was observed as under by the Finance Department: “Finance (Regulation) Department: N/87:- Examined. Finance Department concurs in the proposal of A.D.” 11. The Administrative Department supplied the requisite information and ultimately it was observed as under by the Finance Department: “Finance (Regulation) Department: N/87:- Examined. Finance Department concurs in the proposal of A.D.” 11. Thereafter the matter was examined in the Law Department and it came up for consideration before the Cabinet in its meeting held on 26.9.2003. The amendment was notified in the official gazette on 13.10.2003, which reads thus: “No.FDS-B(3)-2-Loose- (1) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to make the following rules further to amend the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988, notified vide this Government Notification No. FDS-A(3)-4/82III, dated the 20th April, 1988 and published in Rajpatra, Himachal Pradesh (Edtra-ordinary) dated 14th May, 1988, namely:- Short title and commencement-(1) These rules may be called the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection (5th Amendment) Rules, 2003. (2). They shall come into force from the date of publication in Rajpatra, Himachal Pradesh. Amendment of rule 13.- In rule 13 of the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988, for sub-rule (1), the following shall be substituted, namely:- “(1) The President of the State Commission shall be entitled to salary, allowances and other perquisites as are available to a sitting Judge of the High Court and other members, if appointed on whole time basis shall receive a consolidated honorarium of Rs.1500/- per month or if appointed on Part time basis a consolidate honorarium of Rs. 600/- per day for sitting shall be paid: Provided that a member shall be eligible to any pension granted him by the Government or any authority but honorarium plus pension shall not exceed the last pay drawn by him.” 12. It is in this backdrop of legal framework, the Court has to deal with the facts enumerated in the pleadings. The notification appointing the petitioner was issued on 12.7.2005. The terms and conditions of the notification read thus: “Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Judge of High Court) shall be entitled to salary, allowances and other perquisites as were available to him as Judge of High Court (Last pay drawn minus pension). The notification appointing the petitioner was issued on 12.7.2005. The terms and conditions of the notification read thus: “Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Judge of High Court) shall be entitled to salary, allowances and other perquisites as were available to him as Judge of High Court (Last pay drawn minus pension). He shall also be entitled to the increase in Dearness allowance on account of revision from time to time subject to the condition that no I.R. and relief on pension shall be payable during the currency of tenure of his appointment as President of State Commission after his retirement as sitting Judge of High Court. Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel shall hold office of the President, State Commission for a term of 5 years or upto the age of 67 years, which ever is earlier and shall not be eligible for reappointment.” 13. He assumed the office of the President of the State Commission on 5.10.2005. He was getting pension of Rs.13,940/- and after commutation it was reduced to Rs. 6,970/-. He made a detailed representation to his Excellency the Governor of Himachal Pradesh on 25.10.2007 relying primarily on the amended rule 13 the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988, notified on 13.10.2003. The main thrust of the petitioner in the representation was that he was entitled to salary, allowances and perquisite as are available to the sitting Judge of the High Court without deducting the pension payable to him for services he has rendered as a Judge of the High Court. He sent communication/reminder on 29.2.2008 for early decision of his representation. Respondent No.1 referred the matter to the Finance Department on 10.7.2008 in the following terms: “Kindly send to F.D. for consideration as it involves financial implication. Justice Goel has a short point. His terms & conditions of appointment cannot be contrary to Consumer Protection Rules. He was appointed in July 2005. The state Govt. had amended Rule 13(1) in October 2003 wherein there was no intention of deduction of pension from salary for the President of the Commission. Therefore, he has requested for correction of notification of the appointment by deleting the reference to deduction of pension.” 14. The matter came up before the Finance Department and it opined as under: “FINANCE (REGULATIONS) DEPTT N-29: The matter was examined. Therefore, he has requested for correction of notification of the appointment by deleting the reference to deduction of pension.” 14. The matter came up before the Finance Department and it opined as under: “FINANCE (REGULATIONS) DEPTT N-29: The matter was examined. The President of the Forum has been getting his salary in term of the appointment order dated 12.7.2005 which provided for deduction of pension from the salary, as is the practive in all such re-employment instructions of State including Statutory appointments like the State Consumer Forum. The President of the Forum never refused the appointment to the Forum as per Govt. orders dated 12/7/2005. The matter has been referred to the F.D. after about 3 years of the appointment of the President i.e. at a very belated stage. F.D. regrets and AD is requested to process and decide the matter accordingly. “ 15. Respondent No.1 after the receipt of the opinion of the Finance Department sought the opinion of the Law Department of the State Government. The opinion was rendered by the Law Department on 29.1.2009. The complete text of the opinion is reproduced hereinbelow: “Government of Himachal Pradesh Law Department N-35 (ante):- Examined in the Law Department. Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retired) has been representing to the State Government that his pension is being deducted wrongly from his salary as the action of the State Government is in conflict with the provisions of Rule 13 of the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection (5th Amendment) Rules, 2003. It is the further the contention of the representationist that his terms and conditions of appointment cannot be contrary to the HP. Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 as amended in the year, 2003. It may be noticed that Sh. Arun Kumar Goel, Retired Judge of the High Court was appointed by the State Government as President of the HP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide notification dated 12.7.2005 under the provisions of Section 16 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a period of five years or up to the age of 67 years whichever is earlier. The terms of his appointment provided that he shall be entitled to salary, allowances and other perquisites as were available to him as Judge of the High Court (Last Pay drawn minus pension). The terms of his appointment provided that he shall be entitled to salary, allowances and other perquisites as were available to him as Judge of the High Court (Last Pay drawn minus pension). The contention of the representationist is that the provision in the appointment notification dated 12.7.2005 as last pay drawn minus pension is contrary to the amended provisions of Rule 13 amended vide notification dated 13.10.2003. In order to understand the crux of controversy involved in the instant case, there is need to place on record the brief facts of the case. Rule 13 of the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 as originally notified vide notification dated 25.4.1986 to the extent it is relevant in the context of controversy involved reads as under:-“13(1) Where the President of the State Commission is a sitting Judge of the High Court, he shall enjoy all the benefits which he should have enjoyed as sitting Judge of the High Court. Where the President is not a sitting Judge of the High Court, he shall receive a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 7,000/-, per month, if appointed on whole time basis or last pay drawn by him minus pension granted to him or an honorarium of Rs.300/- per day if appointed on part time basis. Other members, if appointed on whole time basis, shall receive a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 1500/-per month or if appointed on part time basis a consolidate honorarium of Rs. 250/- per day for the sitting.” It is clear from the provision reproduced above that where the President is not the sitting Judge of the High Court there was provision that he shall be entitled for past pay drawn by him minus pension. In the meantime Justice P.N. Nag (Retired) the then President of the State Commission filed writ petition No. 78/2000 in the Hon’ble High Court titled as “Justice P N Nag (Retired) Vs. State of H.P. and others, wherein the Hon’ble High Court while allowing the writ petition vide judgment dated 27.9.2002 directed the State to consider the amendment in Rule 13 of the H.P. Consumer Rules, 1978. State of H.P. and others, wherein the Hon’ble High Court while allowing the writ petition vide judgment dated 27.9.2002 directed the State to consider the amendment in Rule 13 of the H.P. Consumer Rules, 1978. The direction for amendment in Rules given by the Hon’ble Court reads as under:- (a) “The respondents shall consider the amendment of Rule 13 of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 providing for honorarium and other allowances to the President and Members of the State Commission in para material to rule 11 of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 framed by the Central Government in respect of salaries, honorarium and other allowances to the President and Members of the National Commission so as to avoid any dispute or amendment in future so far the salaries, honorarium and allowances of the President and Members of the State Commission are concerned.” In order to implement the judgment of the High Court the State Government amended the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 on the analogy of Rule 11 of Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 framed by the Central Government. Rule 13 as amended by the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection (5th Amendment) Rules, 2003 to the extent it is relevant for the purpose of this case reads as under:- “13 (1) The President of the State Commission shall be entitled to salary, allowances and other perquisites as are available to a sitting Judge of the High Court. From the combined reading of Rule 13(1) as originally existed and Rule 13(1) as amended by the HP Consumer Protection (5th Amendment) Rules, 2003 vide notification dated 13.10.2003, it is clear that in the original Rule 13(1) there was a specific and express provision for deduction of pension from last pay drawn where the President of the Commission is not a sitting Judge of the High Court and appointed on whole time basis but vide amendment of 2003 notified vide notification dated 13.10.2003 the provision of deduction pension has intentionally been omitted from amended Rule 13(1). Thus as per amended provision of Rule 13 (1) there is no provision for deducting pension from the salary of the President. The amended provision only insist that the President shall be entitled to salary, allowances and other perquisites as are available to the sitting Judge of the High Court and nothing else. Thus as per amended provision of Rule 13 (1) there is no provision for deducting pension from the salary of the President. The amended provision only insist that the President shall be entitled to salary, allowances and other perquisites as are available to the sitting Judge of the High Court and nothing else. After the enforcement of amended Rule 13(1) vide notification dated 13.10.2003 it insist that pension will be deducted from the salary of the President is to read something more in the amended provision of Rule 13 which is not there. In the opinion of this Department the conditions in the appointment notification dated 12.7.2005 of Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retired) that he shall be entitled to salary and allowances i.e., last pay drawn minus pension is outside the ambit and scope of the provisions of Rule 13(1) as amended by the HP Consumer Protection (5th Amendment) Rules, 2003 notified vide notification dated 13.10.2003 and will fly on the face of statutory provisions of Rule 13 if challenged in the Court of Law. In the opinion of this Department, Sh. Arun Kumar Goel (Retired) Judge of the High Court on appointment as President of the Commission is entitled to salary , allowances and other perquisites as are available to the sitting Judge of the High Court without making deduction of pension which he is getting as retired Judge of the High Court. The observations/opinion of the Finance Department dated 11.8.2008 as available at N30 (ante) to the effect that as is the practice the pension is deducted on re-employment as per instructions of the Government including statutory appointments like State Consumer Forum and further contention of the Finance Department that the President of the Forum never refused the appointment to the Forum as per Government notification dated 12.7.2005 has no legs to stand for the simple reason that the executive instructions of the Finance Department can not over ride the statutory provisions of amended Rule 13(1) where from the provisions of minus pension was intentionally omitted and further doctrine and promissory estoppel cannot be used against Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retired) because it is settled position of Law that there could be no promissory estoppel against a statute. In this behalf reference is made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (AIR 2002 SC 322) and AIR 2004 SC 3504). Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retired) because it is settled position of Law that there could be no promissory estoppel against a statute. In this behalf reference is made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (AIR 2002 SC 322) and AIR 2004 SC 3504). However, it is made clear that this opinion of the Law Department will be applicable only in the caseof Mr. Justice Aurn Kumar Goel (Retired) and the benefit of this opinion shall not be extended to any other President/Chair person/Directors of any other Board, Corporations and Commissions etc. as this interpretation is specifically based on the interpretation of Rule 13(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 as amended vide notification dated 13.10.2003. The AD is advised that matter be taken up with the Finance Department to review its opinion dated 11.8.2008 as available at N-30 (ante) in the light of the legal position explained above. This has the approval of Secretary (Law)” 16. Petitioner made a fresh representation on 30.1.2009. The matter was again referred by respondent No.1 to the Finance Department on 16.2.2009. Respondent No.2 passed the following order on the file, which reads thus: Ns/44.50: The matter was examined. The previous advice of Finance Department, in the matter is relevant and AD has not taken the same into account while processing the case. The AD/Law Department have not mentioned any reason as to why the Pension is to be not deducted in the instant case only and what would happen to the previous and future President’s emoluments, who too may press for a similar demand which allows full pay plus pension of the Judge. A formulation which allows full pay plus pension is contrary to the practice in the Central and HP Government and will invite competing demands from similar situated constitutional/statutory appointees. AD may examine the aspect that there is a specific purpose behind deduction of pension, since pension is payable to a person who is not in active employment. Attention of the AD is also invited towards the definition of the Member in Section 1(ii) of the relevant Consumer Protection Rules shows that intention of the first proviso of Rule -13 to provide for a salary formulation of Pay minus pension to Member, including the President. Therefore, the 12th July, 2005 Notification was issued by the department, under Rule -13 and the first proviso to the same. Therefore, the 12th July, 2005 Notification was issued by the department, under Rule -13 and the first proviso to the same. The Finance Department, therefore reiterates its previous advice in the matter. {This has the approval of the Principal Secretary (Finance) }” 17. Thereafter the decision was taken on 30.3.2009 vide Annexure P-10 and the same was conveyed to the petitioner vide Annexure P-9 dated 9.4.2009. 18. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel has submitted that on the plain reading of rule 13 of the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 amended on 13.10.2003, petitioner’s pension/salary could not be deducted. He has referred to the phraseology employed in unamended and amended rules. His main thrust was that the expression “minus pension” does not find mention in the amended rules notified on 13.10.2003. He also submitted that the amendment has been carried out in the rules after the concurrence of the Finance Department. In other words, his submission is that since there were financial implications while carrying out the amendment to rule 13 of the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988, the concurrence of the Finance Department was received. The Court has closely scrutinized unamended and amended rule 13. Since expression “minus pension” does not find mention in amended rule 13, there was no occasion for the respondents to make deductions from petitioner’s pension/salary. The amendment had already been carried out on 13.10.2003 and the same was required to be incorporated at the time of issuance of notification dated 12.7.2005. The act of respondents to make deductions from the pension/salary of the petitioner is against the letter and spirit of rule 13. Amended rule 13 is to be given plain and literal meaning. It was not open to the respondents to read something in the rules, which was not in existence. In fact, the interpretation/construction made by the respondents to rule 13 has made it nugatory and otiose. 19. Mr. R.K. Sharma during the course of hearing has also argued that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition since he has accepted the terms and conditions incorporated in notification dated 12.7.2005. This contention merits rejection. There cannot be any estopple against the law. Petitioner is seeking what is due to him on the basis of plain reading of rule 13 amended on 13.10.2003. Estopple does not operate to defeat fundamental and constitutional rights. This contention merits rejection. There cannot be any estopple against the law. Petitioner is seeking what is due to him on the basis of plain reading of rule 13 amended on 13.10.2003. Estopple does not operate to defeat fundamental and constitutional rights. Petitioner has made representation on 25.10.2007, as noticed above, and the same has been rejected on 30.3.2009. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of waiver or acquiescence. The petition can also not be termed as time barred. Petitioner had continuous cause of action to get legally what was due to him. 20. Mr. R.K. Sharma has also referred to Annexures R-I and R2. Neither Annexure R-I nor Annexure R-2 are applicable in the present case. The petitioner’s legal rights cannot be defeated only on the pretext that the incumbents appointed and getting salary etc. as per Annexure R-1 have not raised any objection. Reliance on Annexure R-2 by the respondent-State is only misconceived. Annexure R-2 operates in entirely different realm. It only applies to the incumbents who are appointed on Commissions/Committees of inquiry. Petitioner has been a Judge of the High Court and thereafter he has been appointed President of the Commission vide notification dated 12.7.2005. 21. Mr. R.K. Sharma then contended that the amendment to rule 13 of the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 has been carried out to bring it in conformity with rule 11 of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. This also merits rejection. In the present case we have to read what is provided in rule 13 of the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988. The golden rule of interpretation is to read the Act and Rule as they exist without adding or subtracting anything from the same. The language employed in rule 11 of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 and rule 13 of the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 is different/distinct. 22. The matter is required to be considered from another angle by making reference to the exercise undertaken by the respondents before the final decision was taken on 30.3.2009. In sequel to the representations made by the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Financial Department on 10.7.2008. The Finance Department has sought certain informations, which were supplied to by the Administrative Department. Thereafter the matter was examined by the Finance Department. In sequel to the representations made by the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Financial Department on 10.7.2008. The Finance Department has sought certain informations, which were supplied to by the Administrative Department. Thereafter the matter was examined by the Finance Department. Respondent No.1 on its own wisdom has sought the opinion of the Law Department. The Law Department has given the detailed opinion, as reproduced hereinabove. The opinion given by the Law Department is based on correct interpretation of amended rule 13. Thereafter the matter was again referred to the Finance Department and the decision taken by it on the file has been referred to in the opening portion of the judgment in verbatim. The Finance Department has opined that in case the plea of the petitioner is accepted, it will open Pandora’s box. This plea cannot be accepted. What is due to a citizen must be paid to him in accordance with law. The Finance Department has misconstrued rule 13, more particularly, proviso to rule 13. Petitioner has been appointed as a President. The mode of the appointment of the President and the duties discharged by him are distinct from the Members. What may be true about the conditions of service of Member in all circumstances may not be true about the terms and conditions of the President. The President is appointed with different qualifications and his terms and conditions are different vis-à-vis members of the Commission. The opinion given by the Finance Department runs contrary to the opinion given by the Law Department. Respondent No.1 should have tried to reconcile the opinions expressed by Finance Department and Law Department. In the present case this exercise has not been undertaken. Respondent No.1 has accepted the opinion given by the Finance Department without applying his independent mind. The application of mind is sine qua non for arriving at a correct decision. The matter was required to be thoroughly looked into by respondent No.1 before accepting the opinion of Finance Department. It is true that the opinion given either by the Finance Department or Law Department are advisory in nature, however, the entire gamut has to be gone into primarily on the basis of plain reading of rules. The matter was required to be thoroughly looked into by respondent No.1 before accepting the opinion of Finance Department. It is true that the opinion given either by the Finance Department or Law Department are advisory in nature, however, the entire gamut has to be gone into primarily on the basis of plain reading of rules. The Court is of the opinion that since the Law Department has correctly interpreted rule 13 of the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988, it should have given primacy over the opinion expressed by the Finance Department. It is reiterated that when the language is plain and unambiguous and admits only one meaning, no question of construction of a statute arises, for the Act speaks itself. 23. The petitioner is getting pension being the retired Judge of the High Court. He has earned it while discharging constitutional duties. Pension is not a bounty. It is a valuable constitutionally protected right. No deduction is permissible from the pension without any authority of law. The pension has been given the status of property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. In view of this, the action of the respondents of making deductions from the pension/salary of the petitioner is declared unconstitutional thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 24. Mr. R.K. Sharma has cited the following judgments: (i) V.S. Mallimath versus Union of India and another, (2001) 4 SCC 31 and (ii) M.S. Chawla and others versus State of Punjab and another, (2001) 5 SCC 358 25. The judgments cited by Mr. R.K. Sharma are not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The terms and conditions of the incumbents appointed in those cases were entirely different. 26. The Division Bench of Orissa High Court in Justice Debendra Mohan Patnaik versus State of Orissa and others, AIR 2008 Orissa 28 has held that reduction of salary of a President of the State Commission to the extent of pension he received as retired Judge was illegal, unconstitutional and invalid. Their Lordships have held as under: “10. 26. The Division Bench of Orissa High Court in Justice Debendra Mohan Patnaik versus State of Orissa and others, AIR 2008 Orissa 28 has held that reduction of salary of a President of the State Commission to the extent of pension he received as retired Judge was illegal, unconstitutional and invalid. Their Lordships have held as under: “10. Be that as it may, we are concerned with the Rules framed by the State of Orissa which does not make any provision for deduction of pension from the total salary of the President, State Commission and in the past, as we have indicted, the ‘State Government has paid the benefit of a sitting Judge to the Chairman of the Liquor Tragedy Commission and there is nothing before us to accept the reason why the petitioner shall not be given the benefit according to the provisions of the Act and the Orissa Consumer Protection Rules and the benefits so extended to Justice S.K. Ray by virtue of the order of this Court which was kept unaltered by the Apex Court. 11. Pension is not a bounty as has been held by the Supreme Court in several decisions. It is a part of one’s own earning, which is retrained and is given after superannuation as per the rules. Thus, an indefeasible right is created. That right cannot be taken away or abridged in any manner in course of a subsequent employment unless statute under which the employment is made specifically provides for such abridgement. In case of a statutory appointment like the one the petitioner was holding, namely, President of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which is made under the Consumer Protection Act, unless there exists a provision in the Act itself the indefeasible right to pension earned by a High Court Judge cannot be abridged in any manner particularly in the teeth of the constitutional provision of Article 221 (2) as interpreted by Sheth’s case (AIR 1977 SC 2328) (supra). No such provision having been pointed out Rules made thereunder, the conclusion is irresistible that no part of the petitioner’s pension earned as a Judge of the High Court can be taken into account while fixing the salary for the period he served as whole time President of the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, the deduction of Rs. Consequently, the deduction of Rs. 12,724/- per month from his salary is illegal and would constitute a constitutional infraction. 12. In this view of the matter which we have elaborated in our foregoing discussions, we are drawn to an irresistible conclusion that the State Government has acted illegally and unreasonably by reducing the salary of the writ petitioner to the extent of pension he received during his tenure as the whole time President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Accordingly we direct the O.Ps. to pay the petitioner the amount that has been deducted from his salary for the period for which he functioned as whole time President of the forum which shall be computed within a period of three months from the date of issuance of writ and be paid to him within a month thereafter. The differential gratuity which has also not been paid to the petitioner, be paid in the meantime.” 27. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexures P-9 and P-10 dated 9.4.2009 and 30.3.2009, respectively are quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to amend the terms and conditions of the petitioner enumerated in notification dated 12.7.2005 by issuing corrigendum in view of the observations made hereinabove with a further direction to the respondents not to make deductions from his salary, allowances and perquisites. Respondents are further directed to pay the petitioner the amount illegally deducted from his pension/salary with effect from 5.10.2005 with interest @ 9% per annum. The directions issued hereinabove are peremptory and are to be complied within a period of eight weeks from today. No costs.