ORDER : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that the respondents be directed to pay him salary and other emoluments as are payable to a District Judge on being appointed as a President of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jalor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Forum’). 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of considering petitioner’s prayer are that the petitioner was firstly nominated/appointed as President of the Forum by the State Government vide order dated 21.09.2013 (Annexure-1) for a period of five years. 3. According to above referred order, he was to receive a salary equivalent to that of a District Judge (51550-1230-58930-1380-63070). 4. After completion of his first tenure, the petitioner was renominated/reappointed as a President of the Forum by way of order dated 19.02.2022 (Annexure-4). 5. The petitioner contended that he is entitled to the salary payable to a retired District Judge as per Rule 3 (1)(b) of the Rajasthan Consumer Protection (Salary, Allowances and Conditions of Service of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2021’). Because, once being appointed as a President of the Forum and having availed salary equal to a District Judge, he is required to be considered as a retired District Judge for all practical purposes and paid salary accordingly. 6. The petitioner submitted that according to Consumer Protection (Salary Allowances and Conditions of Service of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Model Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Model Rules of 2020’), the President of a Forum is entitled for salary equal to that of a District Judge. 7. The petitioner submitted that later on though Rules of 2021 have been incorporated but there is no stipulation covering the case of persons like the petitioner and thus his salary can in no case be lesser than what he was receiving during his previous term. 8. The petitioner has made two fold arguments. Firstly, that once having been appointed as a President from Advocate’s quota and having drawn salary payable to a District Judge, he ought to be considered a retired District Judge for his second term and therefore, the salary being payable to a retired District Judge as per Clause (b) of Rule 3 (1) of the Rules of 2021 is payable to the petitioner. 9. 9. Secondly, that he is entitled to get salary as per Rule 3 of the Model Rules of 2020 (Annexure-2). 10. Another argument was raised by the petitioner that since by a communication dated 19.09.2022 (Annexure-9), the Assistant Registrar of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has recommended to consider petitioner’s case under the provisions of Rule 3 of the Model Rules, 2020 and therefore, the State is bound to pay the salary as per Rule 3 of the Model Rules of 2020. 11. Heard the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 12. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner was appointed for the first time, the Rules of 2021 were not in offing, due to which and the petitioner was paid salary as per the Government order dated 21.09.2013. However, when the petitioner was re-appointed on 19.02.2022, the Rules of 2021 had been promulgated. 13. On perusal of the Rules of 2021, this Court finds that there is a clear stipulation in the form of Rule 3 (1)(c) of the Rules of 2021, which covers petitioner’s case. Clause (c) of Rule 3 (1) of the Rules of 2021 reads thus:- “(c) if a practicing advocate is appointed as a President of the District Commission, he shall be allowed consolidated salary as may be approved by the State Government, from time to time.” 14. In this regard, a reference to notification dated 17.01.2022 (Annexure-6) is apt to be made, in which it is clearly stipulated that when a practicing Advocate is appointed as a President of the District Commission, he shall be entitled to a consolidated salary of Rs.60,000/- per month. 15. Petitioner’s contention that he be considered as a retired District Judge and held entitled to emoluments as per clause (b) of the Rule 3 (1) of the Rules of 2021 is misconceived. Merely because the petitioner has drawn a salary equivalent to District Judge during his first tenure per force the terms of appointment, he cannot be considered as a retired District Judge. 16. Petitioner’s second contention that he should be governed by the Model Rules of 2020 is also liable to be rejected. Admittedly, when the petitioner was appointed by order dated 19.02.2022, the Rules of 2021 had been brought into force, which clearly covers petitioner’s case under clause (c) of the Rule 3 of the Rules of 2021. 16. Petitioner’s second contention that he should be governed by the Model Rules of 2020 is also liable to be rejected. Admittedly, when the petitioner was appointed by order dated 19.02.2022, the Rules of 2021 had been brought into force, which clearly covers petitioner’s case under clause (c) of the Rule 3 of the Rules of 2021. Needless to say that these are only Model Rules; and once the State Government has promulgated its own Rules of 2021, the Model Rules of 2020 have no application. 17. As far as petitioner’s last contention based on the communication dated 19.09.2022 (Annexure-9) sent by the Assistant Registrar of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is concerned, the same is only a communication forwarding petitioner’s representation to Secretary, Consumer Affairs Department and not a constructive order/recommendation. 18. During the course of argument, it was submitted that petitioner’s appointment to the post of President cannot be treated as a practicing Advocate as his rights to practice as an Advocate is barred by Rule 11 (2) of Model Rules of 2020 and Rules of 2021. 19. According to this Court, merely because an embargo to practice before the Consumer Courts on being appointed as Member or President has been placed, neither it can be said that petitioner’s right to practice as an Advocate has been revoked in its entirety nor can the petitioner’s status as an Advocate ceases to exist. Hence, the petitioner’s contention that his appointment be considered as a retired District Judge and not as practicing Advocate is misconceived, to say the least. 20. While holding that the petitioner is entitled to a consolidated salary of Rs.60,000/- per month as per notification dated 17.01.2022 issued by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by clause (c) of Rule 3(1) of the Rules of 2021, the writ petition is dismissed. 21. In case, the petitioner has not been paid the emoluments in accordance with law as per the notification dated 17.01.2022, the State shall pay the same expeditiously. 22. The writ petition stands disposed of. 23. The stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.