IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 14483 of 2009 Date of Decision: 7.5.2010. Bhim Kaur Chhillar --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner was appointed as Member of the District Consumer Disputes & Redressal Forum on whole time basis on 7.7.2008 under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The detailed terms and conditions of appointment were laid down by letter dated 18.3.2009. One of the relevant stipulation reads as under: “6. Other terms and conditions of their appointment shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of Consumer Protection ct, 1986 read with the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 2004 and any other rules framed by the State Govt. from time to time in this behalf.” The State Govt. also framed Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 2004 vide notification dated 17.3.2004 dealing with the terms and conditions of the Members of the Consumer Forums. Rule 3 of the aforesaid rules deals with the service conditions of the Members. The relevant extract from the aforesaid rule is noticed hereunder:- “ 1. Salaries and allowances and terms and conditions of appointment of President and members of District Forum-(Section 10(3) and CWP. No. 14483 of 2009 -2- 22-D) (1) The President of the District Forum shall receive the salary of the Judge of a District Court as may be notified by the Govt. or a sum of Rs. 400/- for every day of sitting, if appointed on part time basis. Other members if sitting on whole time basis, shall receive a consolidated honorarium as determined by the Govt. from time to time, if sitting on part time basis, a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 300/- per day for the sitting. (3) The President and the whole time members of District Forum shall be entitled to avail leave, medical reimbursement facility or any other facility like House Rent Allowance, residential accommodation, conveyance allowance etc. as may be notified by the Govt. as admissible to a regular temporary govt. servant on his initial appointment.” In the year 2008 itself the petitioner suffered from the heart ailment and had to undergo various procedures and remained in hospital from 3.12.2008 to 13.12.2008 as is evident from the discharge slip of the Maharaj Aggrasain Hospital, Rohtak Road, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. The petitioner incurred an amount of Rs. 1, 75, 348/- on her treatment and submitted the bills to the respondents for reimbursement. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned communication dated 11.5.2009. The relevant extract of the rejection letter reads as under:- “ I am directed to refer to your letter No.367 dated 20.4.2009 on the subject cited above and to state that in the absence of notification by the State Govt. as per Sub Rule 3 of Rule 3 of Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 2004 as well as there is no provision of medical reimbursement in the terms and conditions of appointment of Smt. Bhim Kaur Chillar, Member of your District Forum, she is not entitled for medical reimbursement in the existing rules and her request for medical reimbursement is hereby declined. CWP. No. 14483 of 2009 -3- The Medical Reimbursement Bill of Rs. 1, 74, 348.00 of Smt. Bhim Kaur Chillar, Member, District Forum, Panipat for period from 3.12.2008 to 13.12.2008 is returned herewith.” It is this order, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. The State-respondents in their reply have justified the impugned order on the ground that the Members of the District Consumer Forums are drawing consolidated honorarium of Rs. 10,000/- per month and also not to be considered even temporary Govt. servants, hence they are not entitled to the benefit of medical reimbursement which is meant for regular Govt. employees. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. From the terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioner as referred to above as also sub rule 3 of Rule 3, it is explicitly clear that the petitioner, who is a Member of the District Consumer' Disputes & Redressal Forum is to be treated as a Govt. servant for all purposes i.e leave, medical reimbursement facilities etc. Benefit of medical reimbursement is specifically incorporated in Rule 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is a whole time Member of the District Consumers' Disputes & Redressal Forum and in view of the specific provisions of Rule 3 of the rules framed under the Act, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the medical reimbursement. The claim of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to settle the medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner in accordance with the rules within a period of two months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 7.5.2010. lucky