JUDGMENT : 1. By this writ petition, a Society for Former Judge Association, has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) to issue appropriate order or direction to respondents to implement the recommendation of the First National Judicial Pay Commission relating to Chapter 19.193(9) and land earmarked at Jaipur Divisional Hqr. for 750 Sitting Judicial Officers and 110 Retired Judicial Officers, as per J.D.A. 30th Land Property Committee(LPC) dated 1.5.2006 vide letter dated 9th May, 2006 Annexure2) and approved by Cabinet Ministerial sub committee of Government of Rajasthan vide order dated 21.11.2005(Annexure 3) may be allotted to the 750 Sitting Judicial Officers and 110 Retired Judicial Officers forthwith. (ii) to issue appropriate direction or order to Respondents to implement the Recommendation of the First National Judicial Pay Commission relating to Chapter 19.193(9) relating to earmarking the certain percentage of sites/houses, whatever they are available for allocation/allotment by the Housing Board/City Improvement/ Development Authorities for Divisional Hqr. i.e. Jodhpur, Bikaner, Udaipur, Ajmer, and all District Hqr. of Rajasthan for allotment to Judicial Officers. (iii) issue any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.” 2. It is submitted by Mr. R.L. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Association, that in para 37 of the All India Judges' Association And Others Vs. Union of India And Others, (2002) 4 SCC 247 , the Apex Court had made all the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, applicable, on its acceptance, subject to various modifications in the judgment. 3. Relying on Para 19.193 of the Recommendations of the Shetty Commission, regarding houses for the Judicial Officers, it is stated that since the report was made applicable with effect from 01.11.1999, thus the Judicial Officers, who may have retired after 01.11.1999, are also entitled for the benefits of the recommendations for reservation of certain percentage of sites/houses, wherever they are available, for allocation/allotment by the Housing Board, City Improvement or Development Authority etc., to be earmarked for allotment to the Judicial Offices by the respective States Governments/UTs. Para 19.193 of the Shetty Commission's Report, is quoted as below:- “19.193 Having given our anxious consideration to the grievances of the respondents, we recommend the following: 1. All Judicial Officers, irrespective of their cadre, should be provided with Government quarters according to their entitlement. Para 19.193 of the Shetty Commission's Report, is quoted as below:- “19.193 Having given our anxious consideration to the grievances of the respondents, we recommend the following: 1. All Judicial Officers, irrespective of their cadre, should be provided with Government quarters according to their entitlement. If adequate Government quarters are not available at a time, the Government shall requisition the proper houses and make available to the Judicial Officers. 2. Government is entitled to collect by way of rent an amount not exceeding 12.5 of the basic pay of the occupant of such accommodation every month, since we are inclined to recommend payment of House Rent Allowance to every Judicial Officer irrespective of providing Government quarters/requisitioned houses. 3. All Judicial Officers are entitled to House Rent Allowance at the rate provided to the Government servants in the respective States/UTs. 4. Judicial Officers who occupy their own houses with the permission of the High Court are also entitled to H.R.A. at the same rate as provided to the corresponding Government employees. 5. We earnestly appeal to all State Government/U.T. Administrations to undertake a “crash programme” for house construction for Judicial Officers and for the Court Complex with the assistance of Planning Commission and Government of India and complete such programme during the next two to three years. 6. The Government quarters/requisitioned house provided to Judicial Officers must have separate space for 'Home Library' and the necessary books and the furniture of the Home Library shall be at the cost of the High Court, which shall be administered and managed by the Principal District Judge of the District. 7. The Drawing Room of each such quarter/houses shall be reasonably furnished with a sofa set, carpet, teapoy and one or two side tables and chairs at the cost of the High Court/ State which shall be administered and managed by the Principal District Judge. 8. The regular maintenance and repairs of Government quarters allotted to Judicial Officers shall be the obligatory duty of the Public Works Department, since it is not possible for the High Court to maintain a separate department for this purpose. 9. A certain percentage of sites/houses, wherever they are available for allocation/allotment by the House Board/City Improvement/Development Authorities etc., should be ear-marked for allotment to Judicial Officers by the respective State Governments/UTs. The upholstery of every sofa-set should be changed once in three years. 4. 9. A certain percentage of sites/houses, wherever they are available for allocation/allotment by the House Board/City Improvement/Development Authorities etc., should be ear-marked for allotment to Judicial Officers by the respective State Governments/UTs. The upholstery of every sofa-set should be changed once in three years. 4. We have gone through Para 19.193 of the recommendations, and the judgment of the Apex Court in All India Judges' Association And Others Vs. Union of India And Others (supra), and do not find anything, which may support the argument of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the recommendations were made applicable also to those Judicial Officers, who have retired. The argument that since recommendations have been made applicable with effect from 01.11.1999, reservation of housing sites may be made for the Judicial Officers, who may have retired after 01.11.1999, and be made applicable to them, is thus not sustainable. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the JDA, in view of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, made certain reservation of housing sites, in the ongoing colonies developed by it in the City of Jaipur. The recommendations were made by the Secretary, JDA on 09.05.2006, which were considered by the sub-committee of the Cabinet, and that it was decided that for the Judicial Officers, houses/sites may be made available at the place indicated by them from 07.02.2006, on the concessional rate of 50% of the reserved price. The power to relax the Rules also includes Rules for reservation and costing as per the Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General has pointed out that the recommendations made by the Secretary, JDA on 09.05.2006, were accepted by the State Government on 21.11.2006, in pursuance to the decision in All India Judges' Association And Others Vs. Union of India And Others (supra), for the serving Judicial Officers, and not for the retired Judicial Officers. He submits that the petitioner-Association was formed in October, 2007, and thus, the retired Judicial Officers do not have any right, to claim any concession, proposed for the serving Judicial Officers. 7. We have considered the submissions with requisite concern and sympathy for the retired Judicial Officers, and do not find anything in the report of Shetty Commission, which may have indicated any benefit of reservation on housing sites for providing houses to the Judicial Officers after their retirement. 7. We have considered the submissions with requisite concern and sympathy for the retired Judicial Officers, and do not find anything in the report of Shetty Commission, which may have indicated any benefit of reservation on housing sites for providing houses to the Judicial Officers after their retirement. There is no such recommendation that the Judicial Officers, after their retirement, should be given any reservation in the housing sites and to relax any Rules for allotment of such houses/sites for them. The recommendations were made for the serving Judicial Officers, considering the fact that in many States housing was not provided, and that infrastructure was not sufficient, to provide housing to all serving Officers. The Shetty Commission felt an urgent need to provide houses to the Judicial Officers, and while making recommendations for increase of infrastructure for housing, provided for liberal house rent allowances, to be paid to the Judicial Officers. This facility, however, was not extended, nor any such recommendation was made for the retired Judicial Officers. 8. We, however, find considerable substance in the argument that the Association of the Judicial Officers, should not be discriminated in making reservation for houses/sites, colonies, developed by the Development Authority and the Local Bodies, and for which, the Government of Rajasthan has provided reservation of plots for the officers and employees of the Legislative Assembly, Secretariat, and Raj Bhawan, subject to the conditions for allotment applicable to them, namely classification on the ground of income, and the condition that the member of such Society seeking reservation and concessions, should not have his own house anywhere in the State of Rajasthan. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any good ground to allow the prayers made by the petitioner. We thus dispose of the writ petition with observation that in case, the petitioner-Association applies, the State Government will consider to grant reservation of plots to them, in the same manner, as has been granted to other Officers' Associations, or the Employees' Associations, subject to the conditions for allotment made applicable to them under the Rules of allotment and concessions, and on the rates on which allotments are provided for them.