G. B. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ applications have been filed by seven retired Judges of this Court including the retired Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court, five of whom are residing within the municipal limits of Cuttack and two others are residing within the municipal limits of the capital city of Bhubaneswar. The prayer in both these writ applications is that the Central Government should provide medical facilities to these retired Judges of this Court under the Central Government Health Scheme (in short, C. G. H. S.), which facilities have been extended to those retired Judges who are residing in 15 different cities enumerated in Annexure of Annexure 2 series, where such scheme is already in vogue. The main ground of attack in both these writ applications is that providing such medical facilities in respect of those retired Judges residing in the 15 cities enumerated in Annexure 1 and not providing the same in respect of other retired Judges who-are residing in cities other than those 15 cities is grossly discriminatory and there is no reasonable nexus for such hostile discrimination. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have averred that the conditions of service of the Judges of the High Court are governed by the provisions of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (in short, the Act) and the said Act was amended by the Amendment Act of 1976 (Central Act 35 of 1976 ). Under the amended provision, Section 23-D was inserted into the statute book which provides for medical facilities for retired Judges. The petitioners having retired after the Amendment Act coming into force claim to be entitled for themselves and their family members to the same facilities in respect of medical treatment and on the same conditions as the retired officers of the Central Civil Services, Class I and their family members are entitled to under any rules and orders of the Central Government from time to time. It has been further averred that under sub-section (2) of Section 23-D, though a retired Judge of a High Court for a State may avail for himself and his family any facilities for medical treatment which the Government of that State may extend to him, yet the Government of Orissa has not extended any facilities to the retired Judges of the Orissa High Court. The Government of India in the Department of Health and Family Welfare had taken a decision in July, 1987, extending Central Government Health Scheme facilities to Central Government pensioners in Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Poona, which decision has been annexed as Annexure 2 series to the writ application, and under the said decision, the Central Government pensioners in the aforesaid 15 cities who were eligible for availing C. G. H. S. facilities while in service will have the option to get their names registered with any of the dispensaries in a city where the C. G. H. Scheme is functioning irrespective of the fact as to whether they are residing in that city or not. The Government of India in the Ministry of Law and Justice had written to all the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments and Union Territories to extend the medical facilities to the High Court Judges retiring from one High Court of a State and settled down in another State in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 23-D of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, as amended by the Amendment Act of 1976. But the State of Orissa has not extended any such facilities to the retired Judges of this Court or of the other High Courts residing within the State of Orissa. It has been further averred that the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, on being persuaded by the Chief Justice of India, formulated a Scheme and submitted the same for the approval of the Ministry of Law and Justice under which Scheme the retired Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts not residing within the 15 cities where the C. G. H. Scheme is operating could get some medcial attendants and other medical facilties by way of reimbursement of the medical expenses through the respective High Courts of the States where the retired Judges are staying. But that scheme was nor approved by the Ministery of Law and Justice. But that scheme was nor approved by the Ministery of Law and Justice. The said scheme had been placed before the Chief Justices Conference held it August-September, 1991 and the Conference had approved the Scheme and a resolution had been passed to that effect which resolution had been sent to the Ministry of Law Justice and Company Affairs and the Chief Justice of India had written a personal letter to the Minister, Law and Justice, on 17th of February, 1992, requesting him to approve the scheme. The letter of the Chief Justice of India has been annexed as Annexure 3. The Minister concerned, while appreciating the need for providing medical facilities to the retired High Court Judges did not -approve the scheme on the ground that it would have wide repercussions and serious financial implications. A copy of reply of the Minister Law and Justice, to the Chief Justice of India has been annexed as Annexure 4. Having lost all hopes of getting the minimum medical facilities, these seven petitioners have approached this Court. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to notice issued by this Court, the Union Government through the Under Secretary to the Department of Law and Justice, has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that though medical facilities have been extended to the retired Judges under the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, and, in fact, those retired Judges residing in the 15 cities where the Central Government Health Scheme is in operation are enjoying the facilities, yet it is not possible to extend those facilities to other Judges residing in other cities on account of financial constraints. In other words, without ascribing any reason for the views taken by the Minister, Law and Justice, in his reply to the request of the Chief Justice of India, referred to earlier and without giving any data with regard to the financial constraints and the financial implication, the concerned officer of the Union Government has merely quoted the language used by the concerned Minister in not accepting the request-of the Chief Justice of India. It has further been averred that the decision to extend the Central Government Health Scheme facilities to the 15 cities and not to any other city is a policy decision of the Union Government and, therefore, the retired Judges residing in cities other than the cities where the C. G. H. Scheme is in operation cannot complain of any discrimination. We are indeed surprised to find that the opposite parties in the counter affidavit filed have made a statement that some of the retired Judges are accepting assignments like arbitrations, members of commissions of inquiry and members of tribunals after retirement since such acceptance of appointments after retirement is totally irrelevant in the context of adjudicating whether the decision of the Union Government in not extending the medical facilities to those retired Judges residing beyond the 15 cities can be held to be discriminatory in nature. ( 4 ) IN view of the rival stands of the parties, the following questions arise for our consideration:- (I) Having conferred the benefit of medical facilities to the retired Judges of the High Courts under section 34d of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, is the Union Government entitled not to confer the same on those Judges residing beyond the 15 cities where the C. G. H. Scheme is in operation by an execuitve decision? (II) Whether the decision of the Government to provide the medical facilities to those retired Judges residing in the 15 cities enumerated in Annexure 1 of Annexure 2 series and not providing the same facilities two others is hit by the principles of discrimination enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution? (III) Whether there is any reasonable nexus in the decision providing the medical facilities to the retired Judges in the 15 cities and in not providing the same to those Judges residing elsewhere?but before examining the aforesaid three questions for our consideration, it will be appropriate for us to notice some other facts. ( 5 ) THE service conditions of the High Court Judges are regulated by the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. In the original Act, no provision had been made providing medical facilities for retired Judges of the Court. ( 5 ) THE service conditions of the High Court Judges are regulated by the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. In the original Act, no provision had been made providing medical facilities for retired Judges of the Court. By Amendment Act 36 of 1976, the provision was introduced and under Section 23d, providing medical facilities for retired Judges became a part and parcel of the service conditions of the Judges and therefore, those Judges who retired after the Amendment Act coming into force, namely 18-3-1976, are entitled to receive medical facilities as a condition of their service. Even though to receive medical facilities has become a condition of service of retired Judges of the Court, yet in its practical application, only those. fudges are receiving the same who are residing in the 15 cities where the Central Government Health Scheme is in force and out of those 15 cities, 4 are in Uttar Pradesh, 3 in Maharashtra, I in West Bengal 1 in Tamil Nadu, 1 in Karanataka, 1 in Andhra Pradesh, 1 in Bihar, 1 in Rajasthan and 1 in Delhi and 1 in Gujarat. If the permanent seats of the High Courts in the country are taken into account, then out of 18 High Courts in the country, the facilities have been provided for in respect of ten High Courts, assuming that the Judges on retirement are residing in the principal situs. The exclusion of the High Courts is of the High Courts of Gauhati, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana, Sikkim and Orissa. If the total sanctioned strength of the Judges of those High Courts is taken into account, then it will transpire that at least two-thirds of the Judges have been provided for the facilities in question and only onethird are being deprived of the facilities of medical treatment after retirement. It cannot be disputed that a retired person needs more medical care and attention on. account of the age and the frailing health. Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we, would now examine the questions posed by us earlier for our consideration. It cannot be disputed that a retired person needs more medical care and attention on. account of the age and the frailing health. Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we, would now examine the questions posed by us earlier for our consideration. ( 6 ) SO far as the first question is concerned, there cannot be any manner of doubt', that a retired Judge of any High Court is entitled to the facilities of medical treatment' as are available to a retired officer of the Central Civil Services, Class 1, as a part and parcel of the service conditions of the said' Judge. If the executive Government by its own action fails to implement the service conditions of any Government servant or a Judge of a High Court and a complaint is made to that effect, then the Court would be entitled to issue a mandamus compelling the executive Government to perform its act for implementation of the service conditions. The entitlement of retired Judge to get the medical facilities contained in Section 23d of the Act has not been disputed by the Union Government either in its counter affidavit or by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union Government in course of arguments. But what is complained of by the petitioners and also admitted by the Union Government is that since the retired officers of the Central Civil Services, Class 1, and their family members are entitled to the medical facilities only in the cities notified by the Union Government where C. G. H. Scheme is in operation, only those retired Judges who are residents of those cities can avail of the medical facilities and not the others. Thus, a right that has been conferred upon a retired Judge of a High Court as a part and parcel of the service conditions by legislation is being denied by an executive fiat. The question that arises in this context is whether such an executive decision of the Union Government can be sustained and the legitimate right conferred upon a retired Judge of a Court can be permitted to be whittled down by such executive decision, or the Court would compel the Union Government to make provision for implementing the rights accrued in favour of the retired Judges of the Court under a statue as a part and parcel of the service conditions? The answer to this question must be that the Union Government is not entitled to abridge or take away the rights of a retired Judge of High Court flowing from the provisions of Section 23d of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act by deciding that such rights would be conferred to only those who are residing only in the 15 cities where C. G. H. Scheme is in operation and not to others. A retired Judge of a High Court like any other employee of the Government has the right to enforce the statutory privileges conferred upon him and challenge non-performance on the part of the executive Government in implementing and conferring the said privileges. In our considered opinion, the opposite party Union Government is not entitled to deny the rights of a retired High Court Judge to get the medical facitilities conferred upon him under Section 23d of the Act by deciding that only those retired Judges residing in the 15 cities would be entitled to and not others. As a necessary corollary, the further conclusion would be that the Union Government has failed to discharge its obligation by not providing for the medical facilities in favour of the retired Judges of the High Court those who are not residing in the 15 cities referred to earlier, even though they are entitled to the same under Section 23d of the Act. ( 7 ) COMING to the second question, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Union Government, made elaborate submissions justifying the action of the Union Government and contended that there has been no discrimination between the retired Judges of the Court and those retired Judges who reside in the 15 cities and such discrimination, if any, is permissible on the ground of their respective places of residence. In other words, he contended that there has been no violation of the equality provision enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution in the case in hand and, therefore, the executive decision providing facilities of medical treatment to the retired Judges residing in the 15 cities and not providing the same to those residing in other cities is not hit by the principles of discrimination. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the aforesaid submission of Mr. Misra, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union Government. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the aforesaid submission of Mr. Misra, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union Government. The discrimination which has been alleged in the case in hand is not by any statutory provision or legislation, but by the executive decision of the Union Government. 'the doctrine of equality before law is a necessary corollary to the rule of law accepted by our Constitution and one of the aspects of the rule of law is that every executive action, if it is to operate to the prejudice of any person, must be supported by some legislative authority. The law envisages, equality is for equals, that is to say, those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment. In other words, among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the likes should be treated alike. If persons equally situated are treated in a discriminatory manner or the law governing their rights is implemented in a manner which on the face of it exhibits gross inequal treatment, then there cannot be any doubt that there has been an infraction of Art. 14 of the Constitution. In the case in hand, the grievance is not that the law is discriminatory, but the grievance is that in implementing the law, more particularly Section 23d, the executive action is discriminatory. We find sufficient force in the aforesaid grievance of the petitioners. When certain benefits have been conferred on the retired Judges of the High Courts as a part and parcel of their service conditions, and in conferring that benefit in the executive Government takes a decision by which only some of those get the facilities and others do not, then such decision of the executive Government cannot but be held to be discriminatory in nature. It is too well settled that if an executive action violates the principles of equality before law or the equal protection of law, then such action is open to be challenged under Art. 14 of the Constitution and when such challenge is made and the Court comes to the conclusion that the executive action results in denial of equality before law, then the Court can strike down such executive action being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Discrimination practised by an executive action or decision in carrying out the provisions of a statute is a vioaltion of the injunction under Art. 14 of the Constitution and what a Legislature could not do, the executive cannot be permitted to do. The Courts have gone to the extent of laying down the law that even in matters of acts of bounties, charities and privileges the State or any public authority cannot act arbitrarily. When the retired Judges of the Court residing in cities other than the 15 cities where C. G. H. Scheme is in operation are denied of their right to receive the medical aid engrafted in Section 23-D of the Act, not because of any legislation, but because of the executive decision and thereby the executive decision in question denies the privileges to some enjoyed by others, it cannot but be regarded as a hostile discrimination as it affects injuriously the interest of some persons belonging to the same class. We have, therefore, no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the executive decision in question in the case in hand brings out gross discrimination in the matter of implementing the service conditions of' the retired Judges contained in Section 23-D of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act by conferring the same on those who are residing in the 15 cities and not conferring the same on those who are residing outside those 15 cities. ( 8 ) IN this connection it would be further appropriate to examine as to whether there is any reasonable nexus between those who are residing in those 15 cities and thereby are getting the relief and those who are not riding in those cities and consequently are being denied of their rights. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Union Government, no nexus has been indicated and a bald assertion has been made that the Central Government Health Scheme has been in operation in 15 (cities only and not in any other places. It is true that Article 14 does not require any scientific classification or logical perfection, but the classification, if any, must be a reasonable one to the satisfaction of the Court and there must be a reasonable relation between the distinction made and the object of such distinction. It is true that Article 14 does not require any scientific classification or logical perfection, but the classification, if any, must be a reasonable one to the satisfaction of the Court and there must be a reasonable relation between the distinction made and the object of such distinction. A classification ipso facto is not enough, but the classification must be (based on a reasonable ground which is relevant to the object of a legislation. The Supreme Court has laid down that when any faction is challenged as violative of Article 14, 'it would be appropriate to examine as to the underlying policy and object intended to be achieved by the provision in question and if there has been any differentiation in its application, then if there is any rational nexus or relation with the avowed policy and object. If the impugned action of the executive Government is examined from the aforesaid stand-point, we see no justification on the part of the executive Government to deny the statutory entitlement of a retired Judge of a High Court to receive medical facilities under Section 23-D of the Act merely because he does not reside in any one of the 15 cities where the C. G. H. Scheme is in operation. In our considered opinion, therefore, the retired Judges of the High Court residing in cities other than the 15 cities declared by the Government have been deprived of their legitimate right under Section 23-D of the Act by an executive fiat of the Union Government which is __grossly discriminatory and unsupportable and the said executive decision must be held to be discriminatory and does not stand the scrutiny of equal protection of law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. We further hold that the Union Government has failed to discharge its obligation in Implementing the provisions contained in Section 23-D of the Act by not making any provision for medical facilities to the retired Judges of the High Court residing elsewhere than the 15 cities where the C. G. H. Scheme is in operation. We further hold that the Union Government has failed to discharge its obligation in Implementing the provisions contained in Section 23-D of the Act by not making any provision for medical facilities to the retired Judges of the High Court residing elsewhere than the 15 cities where the C. G. H. Scheme is in operation. It would not be inappropriate for us to notice at this stage, which we have mentioned earlier, that if the permanent seat of the High Court is taken to be the basis for conferring the facility in question to the retired Judges residing therein, then the majority of the High Court Judges must be held to have been getting the facility in question. That apart, denial of such facility to a few others has been engaging the attention of the Chief Justices Conference for last several years and the resolution passed therein had been conveyed to the Government in the Health Department by no other person than the Chief Justice of India and the Health Department had even formulated a Scheme and had sent the same for approval of the Ministry of Law and Justice, but the said Scheme has not been accepted on a mere ground of financial constraint. In the return that has been filed in this Court, the same expression has been used and no data have been given to indicate the extent of financial involvement in implementing such a Scheme which had been formulated by the Government in the Health Department. In our view, in the absence of any materials indicated in the return, the conclusion appears to be based on total non-application of mind and due attention has not been bestowed by examining the actual financial constraint likely to be there in implementing the scheme. In our view, in the absence of any materials indicated in the return, the conclusion appears to be based on total non-application of mind and due attention has not been bestowed by examining the actual financial constraint likely to be there in implementing the scheme. It is no doubt true that the scheme unless accepted does not confer a right and, therefore, no mandamus can be issued on that score, but in view of our conclusion that no materials have been produced before the Court in support of the ultimate stand that the scheme is not being implemented on account of financial constraints and as such the conclusion is based on non-application of mind, we would be well within our jurisdiction to direct that the Ministry of Law and Justice may re-examine the scheme in question bearing in mind the unanimous resolution passed in the Chief Justice Conference and the request made by the Chief Justice of India. ( 9 ) IN view of our conclusions, as aforesaid, the next question that crops up for our consideration is what directions the Court can give in the facts and circumstances of the present case and having given our anxious consideration to the matter, we dispose of these applications with the following directions : - (I) A mandamus be issued requiring the lopposite parties to make suitable provisions 'for implementing the benefits conferred upon the retired Judges of the High Courts, more ,particularly the retired Judges of this Court (which they have acquired under Section 23-D of the High Court Judges (Conditions of 'service) Act; (II) Until such action is taken, the retired Judges of this Court may be granted the facilities of availing the C. G. H. Scheme at Calcutta by getting their names registered in any of the dispensaries in Calcutta where the C. G. H. Scheme is functioning in accordance with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department decision of July, 1987, even though the petitioners may not be residing in the city of Calcutta; (III) The opposite parties, more particularly, opposite party No. 3, may also reconsider the scheme evolved by the Ministry of Health bearing in mind the unanimous resolution of the Chief Justices Conference, the recommendations of the Arrears Committee referred to in the letter of the Chief Justice of India, dated 17th of February, 1992, to the Minister, Law and Justice, and the difficulties on the part of the retired Judges in getting any medical facilities indicated in the letter of the Chief Justice of India. These writ applications are disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations. There will, however, be no order as to costs. ( 10 ) A. K. PATNAIK, J. :- 1 agree. Order accordingly.