2012 (12) TMI 1188 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to direct the State Government to frame rules regarding medical facilities for retired Judges.
2. Entitlement of retired Judges to medical facilities and the conditions thereof.
3. Uniformity in medical benefits for retired Judges across different States.
4. Independence of Judiciary and its relation to the service conditions of Judges.

Summary:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the High Court to Direct the State Government

The High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the State Government to frame any particular rule regarding medical facilities for retired Judges. This statutory power is vested in the State Government and cannot be exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Appellant was right in urging this ground in the appeals.

Issue 2: Entitlement of Retired Judges to Medical Facilities

Section 23D of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, provides that every retired Judge is entitled to the same medical facilities as a retired officer of the Central Civil Services, Class-I. However, under Sub-section (2) of Section 23D, the State Government has the power to extend different medical facilities to retired Judges. The High Court's direction to the State Government to frame rules for medical facilities was beyond its jurisdiction, as this power is vested in the State Government.

Issue 3: Uniformity in Medical Benefits for Retired Judges

There is a need for uniformity in medical benefits for retired Judges across different States to avoid disparity and ensure equal treatment. Various States have different rules for medical facilities for retired Judges, leading to inequality. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for the State Governments to consider extending better medical facilities to retired Judges and recommended uniform rules across States.

Issue 4: Independence of Judiciary and Service Conditions

The independence of the judiciary is a fundamental principle of the Constitution. The service conditions of Judges, including medical facilities, should not be altered to their disadvantage. The Supreme Court highlighted that arbitrary or unreasonable conditions of service could impact the independence of the judiciary. The Court emphasized the need for uniform medical facilities for retired Judges to maintain judicial independence and impartiality.

Conclusion:

The appeals were disposed of with recommendations for the State Government to notify the rules for medical facilities for retired Judges as directed by the High Court. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for uniformity in medical benefits for retired Judges across different States and highlighted the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary.

Separate Judgments:

Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar delivered separate judgments, with Justice Patnaik allowing the appeals and Justice Kumar dismissing them.