Tenure Of CGRF Members Must Be Considered For Extension Before Issuing Fresh Recruitment: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held that failure to consider extension of tenure of members of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums (CGRFs) in accordance with statutory regulations, and issuing fresh recruitment advertisements without reasons, undermines the independence and impartiality of such bodies. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ananda Sen was hearing a writ petition seeking quashing of Advertisement No. 03/2025 dated 07.08.2025 issued by Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (JBVNL), whereby applications were invited for posts already held by the petitioners, who were serving as Second/Technical Members in CGRFs at Ranchi and Chaibasa.The petitioners contended that their appointments and service conditions were governed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (JSERC) Regulations, 2020, framed under the Electricity Act, 2003, which expressly provide for extension of tenure subject to satisfactory performance. They argued that issuing a fresh advertisement without first deciding their entitlement to extension under Regulation 4.2(2) amounted to an indirect and unlawful denial of extension. On the other hand, the respondents argued that CGRF members are appointed for a fixed term of three years and have no vested right to extension. It was submitted that extension is discretionary and dependent on the satisfaction of the appointing authority, and that JBVNL had consciously decided not to extend the petitioners' tenure and instead fill the posts through open advertisement.The Court, while interpreting Clause 4.2(2) of the JSERC Regulations, 2020, observed that although the initial tenure of members is three years, the provision clearly contemplates extension up to two additional years or until attaining the age of 65, subject to satisfactory service. The Court further noted that the regulatory framework does not mandate that the Second Member must be a serving officer of the distribution licensee, and the use of the term “may” indicates flexibility in appointment.Observing that the CGRFs are quasi-judicial bodies established to ensure consumer grievance redressal, the Court emphasised that any action affecting the tenure of members must be consistent with principles of fairness, transparency, and institutional independence. It held that bypassing the process of considering extension (without any evaluation of performance or recorded reasons) and proceeding to issue a fresh advertisement for the same posts, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. The Court noted:“The word 'extendable' does not give any right for extension and there cannot also be any straight jacket formula for extension of the term of office. The clause of extension in each agreement or each contract or in respect of each laws has to be interpreted, so that the purpose of the agreement, contract or legislation is served.”The Court emphasised that the issue concerns extension of tenure of members of a Forum tasked with adjudicating disputes between consumers and the Distribution Licensee, and therefore directly implicates institutional independence. It observed that consumer confidence in such Forums can be sustained only if their independence is protected. Noting that the Distribution Licensee is itself a party in disputes before the Forum, the Court cautioned that permitting it to unilaterally deny extension of tenure (without oversight of the Regulatory Commission) would compromise neutrality. It held that if the licensee is allowed to refuse extension without checks, “the independence of the Forum will fade away.” The Court noted:“A Forum, which has been given a power to adjudicate a dispute, must be independent. Non-extension of the tenure, without assigning any reason and without undertaking an exercise to find out as to whether the work of the Member was satisfactory or not, will undermine the independence, impartiality and integrity of the said member. Said member will always remain under the control of one of the party to the dispute, i.e., Distribution Licensee, which is not good for the health of the Forum…When there is a provision for extension, though even if it is not a vested right, yet an exercise must be undertaken to arrive at a conclusion whether the term of a Member needs to be extended or not. Without undertaking such exercise, if unbridled power is solely vested with the Distribution Licensee to remove a Member on completion of the initial period of appointment, without considering whether it is necessary to extend the term or not, will also amount to giving an upper hand to one of the party to the dispute.”The Court accordingly held that the respondents are under an obligation to evaluate the performance of the Second Members, and where such performance is found satisfactory, their tenure must be extended. On this basis, the Court set aside Advertisement No. 03/2025 dated 07.08.2025, issued for filling the posts of Second Member at Ranchi and Chaibasa, as it was published without any assessment of the...

Tenure Of CGRF Members Must Be Considered For Extension Before Issuing Fresh Recruitment: Jharkhand High Court

Rushil Batra

Tags