Click the Play button to listen to article

The Jharkhand High Court has modified a State Government notification which restricted the benefit of continuation in office under the Supreme Court's Manendra Bhaskar Limaye ruling to Presidents and Members of Consumer Commissions who retired on or after May 21, 2025.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Deepak Roshan held that the Supreme Court's directions did not restrict the benefit to office-holders who retired on or after the date of its judgment. The Court said May 21, 2025 was merely the date on which the judgment was pronounced and not a qualifying date for entitlement.

The Court was hearing writ petitions filed by former Presidents and Members of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions at Latehar, Jamtara, Simdega and Dumka. The petitioners had been appointed in 2021 for a tenure of four years or until attaining the age of 65 years, whichever was earlier. They retired between September 2024 and February 2025.

The dispute arose after the State Government issued a notification dated October 10, 2025 pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Manendra Bhaskar Limaye (Limaye-II). The notification allowed Presidents and Members who had retired on or after May 21, 2025 to continue until completion of the fresh appointment process.

Since the petitioners had retired before May 21, 2025, they were excluded from its benefit. The State argued that the Supreme Court's directions protected only those Presidents and Members who were still serving when Limaye-II was pronounced on May 21, 2025. It therefore contended that the petitioners, having already retired, could not seek reinstatement.

The High Court disagreed. It said the relevant directions in Limaye-II did not create such a cut-off. The Court observed:

“As a matter of fact, Paragraph 102(4) of Limaye-II nowhere confines the benefit of continuation to Office-holders who retired on or after the date of the judgment itself. Paragraph 102(3) of the directions which governs Presidents and Members appointed and serving prior to Limaye-I entitles such persons to complete their tenure in entirety and, where tenure ends before completion of new recruitment process, to continue in office until that process is completed.”

The Bench noted that all the petitioners had been appointed in October-November 2021, before the Supreme Court's Limaye-I judgment of March 3, 2023. Their tenure subsequently ended before the recruitment process under the new rules was completed.

It therefore held that they fell within the category of Presidents and Members “appointed and serving prior to Limaye-I”. Their entitlement to continue until completion of the fresh recruitment process did not depend upon whether their original tenure ended before or after May 21, 2025.

The Court accordingly modified the October 10 notification to the extent it restricted the benefit to persons retiring on or after May 21, 2025. It directed that Presidents and Members appointed and serving prior to Limaye-I be allowed to complete their tenure and, where that tenure ended before completion of the fresh recruitment process, to continue until the process was completed.

The petitioners were directed to be re-employed in their respective District Consumer Commissions. Their service was also directed to be treated as uninterrupted from their respective dates of retirement until fresh recruitment is made or the Rules are suitably amended.

The writ petitions were accordingly allowed.

Case Title: Umesh Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(S) No. 7373 of 2025

Appearance: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Mr. Arpan Mishra and Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel for the Petitioners; Mr. M.K. Roy, G.A.-I, Mr. O.P. Tiwary, G.P.-III, Mr. Manish Kumar, G.P.-V and Ms. Bakshi Vibha for the Respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Order


Tags: