ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (henceforth referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Application No. 6308/2010. 2. The application filed before the Tribunal discloses that the petitioner was a District and Sessions Judge, who attained the age of Superannuation on 30.04.1996 and was drawing pension of a sum of Rs. 4,893/- per month. The petitioner was appointed as the President of II Additional District Forum, Bengaluru Urban on full time basis in terms of a notification dated 07.10.1996. The appointment of the petitioner came to an end on 07.04.2001. The petitioner claimed that respondent No. 2 issued a pay slip authorizing to draw a sum of Rs. 12,607/- less Rs. 3,939.91 towards the pension and Pension equivalent to Gratuity (PEG) from 14.10.1996 till 07.04.2001 and accordingly, net amount of Rs. 8,667/- was drawn by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 thereafter issued a revised pay slip dated 25.05.1997 authorizing to draw the pay and other allowance less pension of Rs. 3,939.91. Again on 16.09.1999, respondent No. 2 issued a revised pay slip authorizing the petitioner to draw the pay and other allowances less pension and PEG of Rs. 3,940/-. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 15.07.2010 requesting to release the withheld pension and PEG amount. The petitioner claimed that respondent No. 3 withheld the pension and PEG amount of Rs. 9,939.91/- per month, leaving a balance pension of Rs. 1,826/- and Rs. 2,291/- per month commencing from June 1997 till November 2001 amounting to a sum of Rs. 1,28,378/-. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation to respondent No. 3 on 17.07.2010. The petitioner was not satisfied with the monthly salary fixed by respondent No. 2 and thus, submitted a representation to respondent No. 1 on 12.11.1999 seeking clarification as well as to issue a revised pay slip. Respondent No. 2 issued an endorsement dated 20.12.1999, which read as follows: “With reference to the above, I am to state that the recovery shown by this Officer from the reemployed salary in the pay slip issued from time to time is in order and it is in accordance with Rule 313 (b)(1) of the KCSR’s. This is for your information.” 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid endorsement, the petitioner challenged the same before the Tribunal. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid endorsement, the petitioner challenged the same before the Tribunal. 4. The petitioner claimed before the Tribunal that he was not reemployed under Rule 313 (b)(1) of the KCSR and further relied upon Rule 303 (b) of the KCSR and contended that the order of appointment did not contain any stipulation that his appointment was governed under Rule 303 (b) of the KCSR. He further contended that the salary payable to the President and members of the District forum is governed under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Consumer Protection Rule, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KCPR’ for short) which provided that the President of the District Forum shall receive the salary of the District Judge if appointed on whole time basis. He contended that the salary drawn by a District Judge as on 14.10.1996 was a sum of Rs. 16,750/- per month as per the fitment table III of the Government Order with effect from 01.07.1996. He also contended that the pay scale of a District Judge stood revised vide Government Order dated 07.05.2003 but the respondent No. 2 failed to take into consideration the Government Order dated 07.05.2003 so as to re-fix the salary of the petitioner as the President of the II Additional District Consumer Forum from 14.10.1996 till 07.04.2001 at a sum of Rs. 16,750/- per month with effect from 01.07.1996 and also at Rs.18,750/- per month till his date of retirement. The petitioner therefore contended that he had a short drawn his salary from 14.10.1996 till 07.04.2001. 5. The Tribunal considered the question regarding the entitlement of the petitioner to the pension and relied upon Rule 313 (b)(1) of the KCSR and held that “A perusal of the Rule makes it clear that pay on re-employment plus Pension should not exceed the substantive pay in the permanent post drawn before retirement. Accordingly, the pay of the petitioner was fixed by the respondents.” The Tribunal held that the pay of the petitioner was fixed in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Chawla and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, AIR 2001 SC 1706 . 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 7. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not reemployed but the post of the President of the II Additional District Forum was a tenure post for a period of five years. He therefore contended that when the appointment order of the petitioner did not disclose that it was a reemployment under Rule 303 (b) of the KCSR, the question of deducting the pension and the payment equivalent to gratuity would not arise. He further contended that the case of M.S. Chawla (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case, since the question that was in consideration of M.S. Chawla (Supra) related to the Punjab State Civil Service Rules. Therefore, he contended that the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. 8. The learned counsel further contended that the pension is a compensation for the past service rendered and therefore, in the absence of anything to show that the petitioner was reemployed, there was no question of deducting the pension already received. The learned counsel also invited our attention to Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CP Act 1986’ for short) as well as Rule 3 of the KCPR and contended that the post of a President of the II Additional District Forum was a tenure post and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to draw the pay of the District Judge. 9. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submitted that the issue is no longer res-intigra in view of M.S. Chawla’s case (Supra), where the facts and circumstance were more or less similar to the facts and circumstance of this case. He further contended that similar question arose in the case of V.S. Mallimath vs. Union of India and Another, AIR 2001 SC 1455 , where, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the pay of a member of Quasi Judicial Tribunal cannot exceed the substantive pay which includes the pension amount payable. He further contended that similar question arose in the case of V.S. Mallimath vs. Union of India and Another, AIR 2001 SC 1455 , where, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the pay of a member of Quasi Judicial Tribunal cannot exceed the substantive pay which includes the pension amount payable. The learned Government Advocate brought to our notice Rule 313 (b) (1) of the KCSR Rules which reads as follows: “(b) The pay to be allowed on re-employment is subject to the following conditions all of which must be satisfied: (i) Pay on re-employment plus pension (including pension equivalent of death-cum-retirement gratuity or gratuity in lieu of pension) should not exceed the substantive pay in a permanent post but not pay in a temporary post drawn before retirement or the officiating pay in cases where the officiating post has been held for not less than one year immediately prior to retirement.” 10. He therefore contended that the deduction of pension from the pay of the petitioner was justified. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case and we have also perused the documents that were placed before the Tribunal. A perusal of the application filed before the Tribunal discloses that the petitioner had sought for the following reliefs: (a) Direct the respondents 1 and 2 to re-fix the salary and other allowances of the applicant as and when revised by the 1st Respondent/Government on the pay scales of the District Judge at Rs. 16,750/- and Rs. 20,500/- and also revised pay scales at Rs. 18,750/- and Rs. 22,850/- w.e.f. 1-7-1996 and to disburse the arrears of pay and other allowances, from 14-10-1996 to 7-4-2001, by virtue of Government Order Law 124 lac 1997. Bangalore dated 7-5-2003 and also under Sec 10(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Rule 3(1) of the Consumer Protection Rule, 1988. (b) Direct the respondents 1 and 2 to refund the withheld amount of Rs. 2,42,266-00 and excess amount if any from the salary of the applicant from 14-10-1996 to 07-04-2001 with interest at 9% per annum. (c) Direct the respondent 1 to 3 to refund the withheld amount at Rs. 3,939-91 and excess amount if any per month out of the pension of the applicant, from June 1997 till November 2001 and in all Rs. (c) Direct the respondent 1 to 3 to refund the withheld amount at Rs. 3,939-91 and excess amount if any per month out of the pension of the applicant, from June 1997 till November 2001 and in all Rs. 1,28,378/- with interest at 9% P.A. (d) To quash the pay slip Annexure-A2, bearing No. IX/F/DF-VIOI/28/96-97/868, dated 30.01.1997 issued by the 2nd Respondent and endorsement Annexure-A-13, bearing No.......7-6-2007 issued by the 1st Respondent/Government, as arbitrary, illegal and ultravires Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. (e) To award compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony and costs of the litigation. (f) To pass appropriate orders deems fit to grant by this Hon’ble Tribunal.” 12. The petitioner however did not canvass prayer No. 1 before the Tribunal, on the contrary, the whole impetus was upon the claim of the petitioner that he was not reemployed but his terms and conditions of service were governed by the CP Act and KCP Rules. He contended that once the post of President of the District Consumer Forum is a fixed tenure and Section 10 of the CP Act, 1986 provides that the President of such forum is entitled to draw a pay equivalent to the pay of a District Judge, then the question of the deduction of the pension amount which is a compensation for past service, is not justified. The Tribunal therefore considered the aforesaid contention and held that it was not a case of contractual employment but it was a case of re-employment and having regard to the provisions of Rule 313 of the KCSR, it was held that the total pay shall not exceed the substantive pay that the petitioner could have received. In the case of M.S. Chawla (Supra), the facts were almost similar to the facts and circumstance of this case and the Hon’ble Apex Court by considering the said question has answered as follows: “The appointment of a District Judge, after his superannuation as the President of the District Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, cannot but be held to be a case of re-employment of a pensioner inasmuch as the said District Judge is in receipt of a pension for the services rendered as a District Judge in accordance with the provisions contained in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. Since Section 2.1 of Chapter II of Volume II, unequivocally states that every pension shall be held to have been granted subject to the conditions contained in Chapter VII and Chapter VII contains Rule 7.18 as well as Note 3 (a)(i), which have been extracted before, the conclusion is irresistible that the appropriate authority will have to decide the pay and allowances, which the retired District Judge is entitled to receive on being appointed as the President of the District Forum notwithstanding the fixation of such pay under the Rules framed under Consumer Protection Act and while fixing the same, the principle underlined in Note 3(a)(i) has to be followed. This being the position, we see no infirmity with the Government Order dated 25th of January, 1996 and under the said notification the salary of re-employed District Judges as President of the District Consumer Forum, have rightly been fixed, taking into account the pension, which they are in receipt of, as retired District Judges. The contention of Mr. Rao that the salary fixed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder is being altered by an administrative order is of no force, in view of the legal provisions enumerated above and in fact it is the provision of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, dealing with the salary of re-employed pensioners, which governs the field. The other contention on the basis of the judgment of this Court in D.S. Nakara AIR 1983 SC 130 : 1983 Lab. IC 1, that pension is not a bounty is also of no consequence. In the aforesaid premises, we do not find any legal infirmity with the judgment of the High Court, requiring our interference and that Article 136 of the Constitution. These appeals accordingly failed and are dismissed.” 13. Similarly in Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha vs. Union of India and Others, (1985) 4 SCC 322 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in a case of a Judge of High Court, who was reemployed as a Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal, held that he was entitled to remuneration equivalent to that of a High Court Judge provided his pension and other retirement benefits admissible as High Court Judge did not exceed Rs. 3,500/-. In the case of V.S. Mallimath (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court also held as follows: “Though certain broad observations made in the aforesaid case might support the contention of Mr. 3,500/-. In the case of V.S. Mallimath (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court also held as follows: “Though certain broad observations made in the aforesaid case might support the contention of Mr. Iyer, but we find it difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Iyer that the pension received by a Judge of the High Court shall not be taken into account for determining his salary as a Member of the Human Rights Commission as the services of a Judge of the High Court by no stretch of imagination, even though pensionable, can at all be intended to be excluded for determining the salary which such Member on retirement as a Judge or Chief Justice of a High Court is entitled to receive under Rule 3(b) of the Rules.” 14. Having regard to the above and in view of Rule 313(b)(1) of KCSR, it is now well settled that the appointment of a retired District Judge to the post of the President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum would be a case of reemployment. Mere non-mentioning of the fact that the petitioner was reemployed, in the appointment order, would not make it a tenure employment. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the pension paid to the petitioner had to be deducted from out of the pay payable to the petitioner. On this count, the reasoning of the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. However, it is seen that the petitioner claimed that he was entitled to draw the salary of a District Judge and Rule 313(b)(1) of the KCPR provided that a President of the District Forum shall receive the salary of a District Judge, if appointed on whole time basis. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to draw the salary as per the pay scales of a District Judge as on the date of he assuming the charge of the office of the President, II Additional District Forum, Bengaluru and as per the pay revision dated 07.05.2003. To this extent, the petitioner is entitled to pursue his remedy before the Government. 15. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is partly allowed. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for recovery of the pension and Pension Equivalent to Gratuity deducted from out of his pay, the same is not sustainable and the same is rejected. 15. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is partly allowed. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for recovery of the pension and Pension Equivalent to Gratuity deducted from out of his pay, the same is not sustainable and the same is rejected. The respondents shall, if not already done, re-fix the pay of the petitioner as per the pay scale of a District Judge as on 14.10.1996 and grant all consequential benefits. This exercise shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The petitioner is entitled for re-fixation of the pension payable based on the revised pay.