Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 432 (MP)

Suman Shrivastava v. High Court of M. P.

2014-04-21

A.M.KHANWILKAR, K.K.TRIVEDI

body2014
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the spouse of deceased former Judge of this Court Shri B.B.L. Shrivastava claiming reimbursement of medical bills for the expenses incurred during her hospitalization at Mumbai in May, 2010. The claim of reimbursement is founded on the Circular dated 23rd April, 2007, issued in the name of Governor of Madhya Pradesh by the Principal Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, General Administration Department. The said circular reads thus : “GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA, BHOPAL ORDER Bhopal, dated 23rd April, 2007 No.A5-7/071(1) in exercise of the powers contained in section 23 D(2) of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, read with rule 2 of the High Court Judges Rules, 1956, the State Government has decided to extend the facilities for medical treatment and hospital accommodation available to the sitting Judges of the High Court as per section 23 of the said Act read with rule 2 of the said rules to the retired Judges of Madhya Pradesh High Court. The above expenditure will be charged to the Major Head 2071 Pensions and other Retirement Benefits (01) Civil (106) Pensionary Charges in respect of High Court Judges. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh shall be sanctioning authority for all cases relating to medical treatment of retired High Court Judges. This order is issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department as communicated vide UO Note No.R.678/07 dated 23.4.2007. By order and in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, Sd/- (I.M.Chahal), Principal Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh General Administration Department” 2. On the plain language of this circular, it is indisputable that the facilities for medical treatment and hospital charges was made available to the retired Judges of Madhya Pradesh High Court as was available to the sitting Judges of the High Court as per section 23 of the said Act read with rule 3 of the High Court Judges Rules, 1956. As per the said scheme, however, after retirement, the spouse of the retired Judge was not covered for medical treatment and hospital charges. That scheme was introduced by the State Government only on 6th January, 2012, by issuing order in that behalf in the name of Governor, under the signature of Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. As per the said scheme, however, after retirement, the spouse of the retired Judge was not covered for medical treatment and hospital charges. That scheme was introduced by the State Government only on 6th January, 2012, by issuing order in that behalf in the name of Governor, under the signature of Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. The same reads thus : ^^e/;izns'k 'kklu lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ea=ky; %% vkns'k %% Hkksiky++] fnukad 06 tuojh 2012 Øekad ,Q , 5&10@2011@,d¼1½ jkT; 'kklu ,rn }kjk mPp U;kf;d lsok ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ds vuq:i mPp U;k;ky; ds lsokfuo`Rr U;k;kf/kifrx.k ,oa muds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dks fpfdRlk lqfo/kk iznku djrk gSA 2@ ;g Loh—fr foRr foHkkx ds ;w- vks- Øekad 2264@1619@11@fu;e@pkj+] fnukad 26-12-2011 ds }kjk nh xbZ lgefr ds ifjikyu esa tkjh dh tkrh gSA e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj lgh@& ¼ch- vkj- fo'odekZ½ mi lfpo e?;izns'k 'kklu lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx** 3. The question is: whether the petitioner who had incurred hospitalization charges in May, 2010, would be entitled for reimbursement, being spouse of the deceased retired Judge of this Court. Considering the fact that the scheme of reimbursement to the spouse of the former Judge of this Court was introduced only after issuance of order dated 6th January, 2012, being an executive order, will have to be given prospective effect. In that case, in absence of any express provision applicable during May, 2010, the petitioner will not be entitled for reimbursement of amount incurred towards hospitalization charges. 4. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on order dated 15th June, 2006, issued by the Secretary, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Government of Madhya Pradesh. That, however, pertains to Judges of the Subordinate Courts and not to Judges of the High Court. The fact that the petitioner's husband was initially in Subordinate Judiciary and was elevated as High Court Judge in due course on 4.7.1986, cannot be the basis to fall back upon the scheme as applicable to the former Judges of the Subordinate Judiciary. The petitioner's husband having become High Court Judge and retired as such, will have to fail or succeed only on the basis of reimbursement scheme as made applicable to retired High Court Judges. The petitioner's husband having become High Court Judge and retired as such, will have to fail or succeed only on the basis of reimbursement scheme as made applicable to retired High Court Judges. No express rule nor any executive order having the force of law has been brought to our notice, which would reinforce the stand of the petitioner that in May, 2010, even the spouses of the retired High Court Judges were entitled for reimbursement of medical claim. Understood thus, no interference is warranted. 5. Petition is dismissed accordingly.