Jharkhand HC Orders Reinstatement of Four Consumer Commission Members Retired Before Supreme Court's Limaye-II Judgment
The Jharkhand High Court held that State Notification No. 2689 of 2025 wrongly confined continuation benefits to members who retired on or after 21 May 2025, contrary to the Supreme Court’s Limaye-II directions protecting all members appointed before Limaye-I.
Justice Deepak Roshan, sitting singly at the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, allowed four writ petitions filed by erstwhile Members and a President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions in Jharkhand, directing their immediate reemployment with deemed continuity from the respective dates of their retirement. The court found that a State government notification issued in October 2025 had applied an artificial cut-off date of 21 May 2025 — the date of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye (Limaye-II) — to restrict tenure extension only to those who retired on or after that date. The bench held that no such qualifying date appears anywhere in the operative paragraph of Limaye-II, and that the four petitioners, having been appointed in October–November 2021 and having served until their tenures ended between September 2024 and February 2025, squarely fell within the protected category.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The four petitioners were appointed to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions across Jharkhand under notifications issued in October and November 2021: Umesh Singh as Member of the Latehar Commission, Suresh Chandra Jaiswal as President of the Jamtara Commission, Bimal Kumar Lakra as Member of the Simdega Commission, and Chandan Banerjee as Member of the Dumka Commission. Each was appointed for a tenure of four years or until reaching 65 years of age, whichever came earlier.
Singh retired on 8 February 2025. Jaiswal had retired earlier, on 30 December 2024. Lakra retired on 21 September 2024, and Banerjee on 2 November 2024. None of them were serving on 21 May 2025.
After the Supreme Court pronounced Limaye-II on 21 May 2025, the State of Jharkhand issued Notification No. 2689 dated 10 October 2025. The notification extended the term of Presidents and Members of the State and District Commissions only for those who had retired on or after 21 May 2025, until the next appointment process was completed. The four petitioners, having retired before that date, received no benefit. They challenged the notification and sought reinstatement with retrospective effect.
The Legislative and Judicial History of Consumer Commission Tenures
The Consumer Protection (Appointment, Salary, Allowance and Condition of Service of President and Members of State Commission and District Forum) Rules, 2019 originally fixed a five-year tenure for Members and Presidents of consumer commissions. An amendment in 2020 reduced the tenure to four years. The Supreme Court, in judgments reported as (2021) 7 SCC 369 and (2022) 12 SCC 455 in the Madras Bar Association series, reiterated that the minimum tenure for such officeholders must be five years.
Several provisions of the 2020 amendment rules were challenged before the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court settled the appointment-related disputes on 3 March 2023 in Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Manendra Bhaskar Limaye, reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 231 (Limaye-I). Following that judgment, the Central Government notified the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Terms of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Amendment Rules, 2023 with effect from 21 September 2023.
The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, separately struck down Rule 10(2) of the 2020 amended rules on 20 October 2023 in W.P.(C) No. 3680 of 2023. That order was challenged before the Supreme Court by Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 25612 of 2023 (Limaye-II). As an interim measure, the Supreme Court on 21 May 2024 allowed the applicants to continue in service. The appeal was finally decided on 21 May 2025.
What Limaye-II Actually Directed
Paragraph 102(4) of the Limaye-II judgment set out a detailed category-wise relief table. The provision directly relevant to the petitioners was sub-paragraph 3, which addressed “Presidents and Members of the State and District Commissions who have been appointed and serving prior to Limaye-I.” For this category, the Supreme Court directed that such persons shall be allowed to complete their tenure in entirety, and where tenure ends before completion of the new recruitment process, their appointment shall be allowed to continue until that process is completed.
The State government’s position, set out in its affidavit, was that Limaye-II protected only those who were actually serving on 21 May 2025 — the date of pronouncement. Since all four petitioners had retired before that date, the State argued that reinstatement would be contrary to the Supreme Court’s order.
Justice Roshan rejected this reading. The bench observed that 21 May 2025 is the date of pronouncement of Limaye-II, nothing more. That date does not appear anywhere in paragraph 102(4) as a qualifying threshold for entitlement. The court drew support from the Supreme Court’s subsequent order dated 19 January 2026 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 36217 of 2025 filed by Urmila Verma, a Member (Judicial) of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whose term had ended on 30 November 2025. The Rajasthan High Court had declined interim protection on 28 November 2025. The Supreme Court reversed that refusal and directed her reemployment forthwith, with deemed continuity from 1 December 2025 until fresh recruitment was completed.
The Court’s Reasoning on the State Notification
The bench identified the precise flaw in Notification No. 2689 of 10 October 2025. By directing extension only for those who retired on or after 21 May 2025, the State government introduced a date-based restriction that finds no basis in the Supreme Court’s directions. The operative directions in paragraph 102(3) of Limaye-II are triggered by the character of the appointment — appointed and serving prior to Limaye-I — not by whether the retirement fell before or after the date of Limaye-II.
All four petitioners were appointed under notifications issued between 28 October 2021 and 3 November 2021, well before Limaye-I was pronounced on 3 March 2023. They were serving in that capacity when their respective tenures ended between September 2024 and February 2025. The court held that they are, accordingly, persons “appointed and serving prior to Limaye-I” within the meaning of paragraph 102(3), and are entitled to continue in office until fresh recruitment is completed.
The court directed modification of Notification No. 2689 to the extent it imposed the 21 May 2025 cut-off, substituting it with the correct formulation drawn from paragraph 102(3) of Limaye-II: that Presidents and Members appointed and serving prior to Limaye-I shall be allowed to complete their tenure in entirety, and where tenure ends before completion of the new recruitment process, their appointment shall continue until that process is completed.
Outcome
All four writ petitions were allowed by the common order dated 12 August 2026. The specific directions issued are as follows:
Umesh Singh (W.P.(S) No. 7373 of 2025) is to be reemployed as Member of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Latehar forthwith, with deemed continuity from 8 February 2025 until fresh recruitment is completed or the rules are suitably amended.
Suresh Chandra Jaiswal (W.P.(S) No. 7374 of 2025) is to be reemployed as President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jamtara forthwith, with deemed continuity from 30 December 2024 until fresh recruitment is completed or the rules are suitably amended.
Bimal Kumar Lakra (W.P.(S) No. 7421 of 2025) is to be reemployed as Member of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Simdega forthwith, with deemed continuity from 21 September 2024 until fresh recruitment is completed or the rules are suitably amended.
Chandan Banerjee (W.P.(S) No. 7439 of 2025) is to be reemployed as Member of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dumka forthwith, with deemed continuity from 2 November 2024 until fresh recruitment is completed or the rules are suitably amended.
Notification No. 2689 dated 10 October 2025 was modified to the extent it restricted continuation benefits to those retiring on or after 21 May 2025. Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.