1 2026:CGHC:7679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4965 of 2023 Akhileshwar Das S/o Late Lokeshwar Das, Age 49 Years R/o Khaspara, Jaipur Road, Village Aadawal, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C.G. - 491881 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary - Department Of Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492002. 2 - The District Consumer Commission, Through Its Chairman, Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Harshmandar Rastogi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/02/2026 1. By way of this the petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : 10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directing the respondent authority to produce the relevant records pertaining SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 to the petitioners case. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ directing the respondent state authorities to grant the petitioner salary and allowance in accordance with the Consumer Protection (Salary, allowances and conditions of service of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Model Rules, 2020. Being a full time Member of the District Commission Dantewada. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. 2. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate at the District Court, Bastar. The respondents issued a Notification for vacancy for the post of Member at various District Commissions in the State of Chhattisgarh. Being eligible, the petitioner participated in the said recruitment process by filing his nomination on 22.08.2022. On 01.02.2023, the petitioner was called upon by the respondent authorities for an interview scheduled on 19.02.2023. The petitioner participated in the interview and the respondent authority vide the Notification dated 24.05.2023, issued the selection order in respect of the petitioner and various other persons. A bare perusal of the Notification dated 24.05.2023 would show that the appointment has been made under Rule 6 of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, for a period of 4 years from the date of appointment or until attaining the age of 65 years, which ever is earlier. 3 Though the Notification dated 24.05.2023 clearly stipulates that the salary and allowance for Members from Bemetara, Bijapur and Sukma shall comply with the 2020 Rules, but it is silent regarding the Members from the Dantewada District. When the petitioner sought clarification in this regard from the concerned authority, no response was received. Subsequently, he filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. When that too yielded no response, he preferred an appeal before the State Information Commission. In reply to the said appeal, the respondents provided him a Circular dated 30.07.2012 regarding Honorarium for District Forums under erstwhile Consumer Protection laws. Additionally, the petitioner was provided with a Circular dated 9.2.2022, issued in accordance with the Model Rules 2020. The said order expressly names all other districts, however, it remains silent regarding the District Commission at Dantewada. Moreover, Rule 3 of the Consumer Protection (Salary, allowances and conditions of Service of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Model Rules, 2020 stipulates salary payable to the President and Members of the District Commission, however, the respondents are not adhering to the same. Hence, this Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Part-Time Member in the District Commission vide order dated 24.5.2023 for a period of 4 years or until attaining the age of 65 years, which ever is earlier. He further submits that the grievance of the petitioner pertains to remuneration; while it was previously fixed at Rs.500/- per sitting with Rs.100/- vehicle allowance, there rates were enhanced vide order dated 30.7.2012 to Rs.1500 per sitting along with a vehicle allowance subject to a monthly limit of Rs.18,000/-. He also submits that the Government of India had issued a Notification dated 4 15.7.2020, prescribing the salary and allowances payable to the President and Members of the District Commission. The relevant portion of the said Notification reads as under : 3. Salaries and allowances payable to President and members of the District Commission (1) The President shall be entitled to the salary and allowances as are admissible to a District Judge in the super time scale of pay. (2) A Member shall receive a pay equal to the pay at the minimum of the scale of pay of a Deputy Secretary of the State Government and other allowances as admissible to such officer. (3) The pay of a person appointed as President or member, who is in receipt of any pension, shall be reduced by the gross amount of pension drawn by him. (4) There shall be an annual upward revision of the pay of the President and member at the rate of 3%. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, having been appointed after the issuance of the Notification dated 15.7.2020, is entitled to the salary and allowances prescribed by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs). However, as these benefits have not been granted by the State Government, the petitioner has filed this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that presently, the petitioner is being granted remuneration in accordance with the Memo dated 30.7.2012. However, as regards the Notification dated 15.7.2020, he does not dispute its issuance nor does he deny that the petitioner falls within the ambit of the said Notification. 5. Considering the entire aspects of the matter, the respondent/State is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the Notification 5 dated 15.7.2020 issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs). It is further directed that the State shall pass a reasoned order granting the requisite salary and allowances to the petitioner in their capacity as a Member of the District Commission. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to file an application/representation along with a copy of this order before the authorities concerned to facilitate an expeditious decision in the case. 6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay