New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to explain, by way of affidavit, why it has not framed a rule protecting the last pay drawn by members of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, after being informed that one retired member received no salary at all through his four-year tenure while others were paid as little as Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 a month.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a batch of matters, led by the writ petition titled In Re: Pay and Allowance of the Members of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, along with connected petitions and contempt proceedings concerning the service conditions of Consumer Forum members across the country.
The Court recorded that the learned Amicus Curiae had placed on record a comparative chart of the prevailing service conditions of District Consumer Forum members in different States, which had been circulated to counsel to enable them to take instructions.
Senior counsel Ms. Kiran Suri, appearing for four retired members of the District Consumer Forum in Uttar Pradesh, pointed out that since their last pay drawn had not been protected at the time of their appointment, one of them received no remuneration whatsoever, while the others were paid a meagre sum through their entire four-year tenure, now completed.
“The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to file an affidavit as to why a specific Rule regarding protection of last pay drawn has not been inserted; and why some respectable amount as an honorarium not be directed to be paid to the four Officers, who have already completed their tenure.”
The Court also noted that its earlier order dated 19.05.2025 remained pending compliance, with several States yet to furnish the requisite information to the Amicus Curiae, and directed such States to positively comply and file status reports before the next hearing, making clear that no further extension would be granted.
On the direction to all State Governments to amend their rules to protect the last pay drawn by Consumer Forum members, the Court noted that only Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat had complied, while Meghalaya, Maharashtra and Kerala, among others, had moved applications seeking recall or modification of that direction. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of those applications, the Court granted liberty to affected parties to file their replies within two weeks, and directed States that had neither complied nor sought modification to do the needful within the same period and file compliance reports.
The State Governments were further directed to ensure compliance with the Court's order dated 11.02.2026 and to apprise it of the arrangements made to ensure the functioning of the State Consumer Commissions. In continuation of that order, the Court clarified that States where the total pendency is less than 1,000 cases would be at liberty to abolish some District Forums and entrust the cases to serving judicial officers, with the prior concurrence of the jurisdictional High Court.
The Court also clarified Paragraph 5.1 of its 11.02.2026 order to the effect that not only pending matters but those filed in future would also stand transferred to the Registrar Generals of the jurisdictional High Courts, and that the order would extend to all North Eastern States where pendency is low or meagre.
The matters were posted for further consideration on 13.08.2026.
Case Title: In Re: Pay and Allowance of the Members of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, W.P.(C) No. 1144/2021, with connected matters W.P.(C) No. 613/2022, T.C.(C) No. 17/2025, W.P.(C) No. 229/2025, CONMT.PET.(C) No. 57/2026 and CONMT.PET.(C) No. 263/2026
