OD-6 v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & Ors.

Judgment

1. The petitioner prays for leave to correct the cause title in the name of the petitioner. Leave is granted to the petitioner to correct the cause title in course of the day.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the notice dated 24th June, 2026 wherein the Special Secretary to the Government of West 2 Bengal requested the petitioner to hand over the charge to the President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as she is going to complete her tenure on 31st July, 2026 as per Rules.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao & Ors. Vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limae & ors. reported in (2025) 9 SCC 634 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the President and Members of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission who have been appointed and served prior to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, they shall be allowed to complete their tenure for the entirety. In the event of their tenure ending before the completion of recruitment process under the new rules to be notified, their appointment shall be allowed to continue until the completion of the said recruitment process. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the person who were selected to the posts of Non-Judicial Members of the State Commission and Members of the District Commission, without having undergone a written examination followed by a viva voce if followed in case 3 selection process had been completed prior to the decision of this Court in Limaye-I (supra) such person shall be entitled to complete their tenure in entirety. In the event of their tenure ending before the completion of the recruitment process under the new Rules to be notified, their appointment shall be allowed to continue until the completion of the said recruitment process under 2020 Rules.

4. Rule 6 of 2020 Rules provides for procedure for appointment and Rule 10 provide for terms of the office of the Presidents and members. He submits that after the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Limaye-I (supra), another Civil Appeal was filed arising out of SLP(C) No. 36217/2025 (Urmila Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the case of Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao & Ors. Vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limae & ors.(supra) and held that notwithstanding in the said judgment as an interim measure the Court deem it appropriate to direct that the appellant to be reemployed as a Member (Judicial) of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission forthwith. It further 4 clarified that the appellant upon reappointment shall be deemed to be continued uninterruptedly with effect from 01.12.2025 till the fresh recruitment is made and/or the rules are suitably amended by the State Government in consultation with the High Court.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, different High Courts have relied upon the judgment and passed several judgments. He submits that the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association Vs. The State of Rajasthan passed in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10174/2022 dated 18th March, 2026 held that: “Since the tenure of the Presidents/Members of the State Consumer Commission/District Consumer Commission the State of Rajasthan is coming to an end and/or has ended, but no fresh appointments have been made so far, therefore, we deem appropriate to allow all such officers to continue on the posts they were holding uninterruptedly till the fresh recruitment is 5 made after the rules are suitably amended. The officers, who have been relieved shall be re-employed forthwith and those who are in the process of being relieved, they shall not be relieved until further orders.”

6. In the case of Neelam Khare Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others in Writ Petition No. 15378 of 2026 Madhya Pradesh High Court has also held that Members and Presidents shall be permitted to continue on their posts even after their retirement or completion of tenure till new Rules are notified and appointments are made accordingly.

7. Similarly, in the case of A. Thiruneela Prasad Vs. The Principal Secretary the Hon’ble Madras High Court has also held that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court is binding on the State and the State is bound to give effect to the said order and the Madras High Court directed to take all necessary steps for giving full effect to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar’s case by issuing appropriate order for re-appointment of the Presidents and Members of the State Commission and District Commissions within the State.

8. Similarly, the Kerala High Court has also allowed the President and Members of the State Commission as well as the President and Members of the District Commission to continue for the post as a 6 temporary measure, as per the Rules prevailing when they were appointed, till the finalization of the selection process and consequent appointments are made by the appropriate Government.

9. Learned Counsel for the Union of India in his usual fairness submits that till date the Central Government has not notified the Rule and miscellaneous applications are pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

10. Learned Counsel for the State submits that unless and until the Central Government will notify Rule, State Government cannot do anything.

11. This Court finds that though in the case of Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao & Ors. Vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limae & ors. (supra) the Hon’ble Sureme Court has held that: “We make it clear for all appointments which have been allowed to continue vide this Judgment, the tenure shall be a period of 4 years. Such persons shall not be entitled to claim the benefit of this Judgment qua a five-year tenure, subject to the directions issued hereinabove. We also make it clear that this Judgment shall apply prospectively, 7 except to the extent indicated in the directions hereinabove.”

12. Subsequently, in the case of Urmila Verma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the following order: “Leave granted. This appeal has been filed against an interim order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajashtan, declining interim protection to the appellant to continue as Member (Judicial) of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, notwithstanding judgment of this Court Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar Vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1193. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, as an interim measure, we deem it appropriate to direct that the appellant be reemployed as a Member (Judicial) of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission forthwith. Ordered accordingly. It further clarified the appellant upon reappointment shall be deemed to be continued uninterruptedly with effect from 01.12.2025 till the fresh recruitment is made and/or the rules are suitably amended by the State Government 8 consultation with the High Court. The remaining issues will be examined by the High Court in the pending writ petition.”

13. Considering the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, several High Courts have extended the tenure of the President and the Members of the State Commission as well as the District Commission. This Court finds that that judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the judgments of different High Courts with regard to allowing the President and the Members of the State Commission as well as the District Commission to continue their services till the new Rule is not notified are squarely applicable in the case of the petitioner.

14. This Court also finds that the tenure of the petitioner as Member of State Commission is going to end on 31.07.2026 and after her superannuation it will create vacuum in the post of Member in the State Commission which will go against the very object of the Act and the Rules.

15. Accordingly, the notice dated 24th June, 2026 is set aside and quashed.

16. Respondent authorities are directed to allow the petitioner to continue as Member, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, West Bengal till the new Rule is notified or new incumbent is appointed in place of the petitioner. 9

17. Accordingly, WPO/340/2026 is disposed of. (KRISHNA RAO, J.)