The Supreme Court has issued important directions to ensure uniform pay and allowances for Presidents and Members of District and State Consumer Commissions across all States and Union Territories.
A Bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed this order in a suo motu case related to unequal service conditions and salary structures of Consumer Forum members.
Read Also: High Courts Can Quash Domestic Violence Act Complaints Using Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court
“There is a lot of variance when it comes to the pay and allowance admissible to the members... In some States they are receiving bare minimum amount,” the Court observed.
The issue arose because different States framed their own rules under Section 102 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, after the Centre introduced the Model Rules in 2020. This resulted in disparities in salaries, affecting the effective functioning of consumer redressal bodies.
The Court emphasised the importance of proper pay for members to function efficiently:
“It is therefore obvious that unless they are paid proper remuneration and allowances they will not discharge their duties effectively.”
Read Also: Supreme Court Forms SIT to Probe BJP Minister Vijay Shah’s Remarks Against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi
Using powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court laid down a uniform pattern of pay and allowances, replacing certain provisions of the Model Rules, especially Rules 7, 8, 9, and 11.
Key Court Directions:
- State Commission Members will receive pay and allowances equivalent to District Judges in super time scale, as per the Second National Judicial Pay Commission.
- District Commission Presidents will also be paid on the super time scale, in line with District Judges.
- District Commission Members will get pay and allowances based on the selection grade of District Judges.
- Allowances in Rules 7, 8, 9, and 11 of the Model Rules will not apply to any of the above positions.
- If any President or Member had a higher last drawn pay, it will be protected. However, the applicable pension amount will be deducted.
“Distinctions based on whether members are full-time or part-time, or from judicial or non-judicial background, are not contemplated under the Act. All such persons shall be treated as full-time members,” the Court clarified.
Further, if any State or Union Territory is currently offering a higher remuneration, it will continue without reduction.
The directions will be effective from July 20, 2020, the date when the Model Rules came into force. All arrears must be paid within six months from the date of this judgment.
The Court allowed States and Union Territories to amend their rules under Section 102 to align with this order and scheduled the matter for compliance reporting on September 22, 2025.
Read Also: High Courts Can Quash Domestic Violence Act Complaints Using Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court
“This is a fit case to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 142 for laying down uniform pattern of service conditions,” the Bench stated.
Case no. – WP(C) No. 1144/2021
Case Title – In Re Pay Allowance of the Members of The UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
