By IANS,
New Delhi : Heads of eight district consumer fora in the capital have won a legal battle on perks as the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to pay for their power and transport expenses.
Justice S. Muralidhar told the government to reimburse all bills pertaining to water, electricity and petrol expenses of all presidents and members of the district consumer disputes redressal fora in the city.
Justice Muralidhar in an order passed last week directed the government to pay allowances to the consumer court presidents and members as per the Delhi Consumer Protection (DCP) rules.
The court was hearing the petition filed by eight presidents and three former presidents of the consumer courts in the capital, challenging a notification by the government which states that no reimbursement shall be made as the remuneration given to them is more than their counterparts in other states.
Petitioners said that as per the recommendations of the first national judicial pay commission, the reimbursement of electricity, water and petrol bills would be made to the officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service but the government is not abiding by it.
Petitioners alleged that the same benefit is being given to the members of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the government had in its order dated Aug 17, 2009 stated that these facilities won’t be extended to presidents of the consumer fora.
“When salary and allowances of the presidents and members of consumer fora were compared with the other same post holder in other states and Union Territories, it was found that the facilities provided by the government here were much higher,” said the government.
“Petitioners cannot be denied the benefits. At the time of their appointment the DCP Rules were already in force which contained the above provision,” the court said.
“The petitioners accepted their appointments on the understanding that they would be extended the same perquisites as are available to the judges of the district courts in Delhi. Now to take that benefit away would be altering the terms and conditions of their service after their appointment. This is not permissible in law,” the court said.