Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ. – This petition was entertained by us regarding extension of facilities to retired Judges of the High Court. We had called upon the State Government as well as the High Court to file affidavits vide in order dated 28th March, 2019 which is extracted hereinunder: – “This writ petition has been filed by a Society of Hon’ble retired Judges praying for a mandamus to pay allowances as already determined by the State Government vide Memo dated 5th July, 2016 and amended vide Memo dated 10th July, 2017 in compliance of the order dated 31st March, 2014 of the Apex Court in the case of P. Ramakrishnam Raju vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 1 . A further relief has been prayed for a mandamus to implement the Domestic Help to Former Chief Justices and Former Judges of High Court Rules, 2016 in tune with the resolutions dated 23rd and 24th April, 2016 of the conferences of the Chief Ministers and the Hon’ble Chief Justices apart from the allowances already referred to above. The petition in essence, therefore, pertains to the allowances and other post retiral benefits including Domestic Help, the implementation whereof is sought in the terms as prayed for. In this regard, certain facts are required to be noted as this matter has already engaged the attention of this Court and the Apex Court relating to the subject matters in separate judicial and administrative proceedings. We may place on record that the appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court is governed by Article 217 of the Constitution of India and the salaries etc. of Judges of High Courts in the States is governed by Article 221 of the Constitution of India which is extracted hereinunder: – “Article 221: Salaries etc. of Judges. of Judges of High Courts in the States is governed by Article 221 of the Constitution of India which is extracted hereinunder: – “Article 221: Salaries etc. of Judges. – [(1) There shall be paid to the Judges of each High Court such salaries as may be determined by Parliament by law and, until provision in that behalf is so made, such salaries as are specified in the Second Schedule.] (2) Every Judge shall be entitled to such allowances and to such rights in respect of leave of absence and pension as may from time to time be determined by or under law made by Parliament and, until so determined, to such allowances and rights as are specified in the Second Schedule: Provided that neither the allowances of a Judge nor his rights in respect of leave of absence or pension shall be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.” Part D of the Second Schedule to the Constitution makes provisions as to the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. Item No. 10 of the Second Schedule contained in Part D indicates the details of the salary and pension that is payable to a Judge. The Parliament that has the power to legislate on the subject matter enacted the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 as amended uptil date. Section 14 of the Act provides for pension to a retired Judge and the period of pension has further been indicated to be calculated in the manner as provided under Section 14A. The other provisions regarding Extraordinary Pension and Family Pension and Gratuities are provided in Section 17 and 17(A) with details with regard to death-cum-retirement gratuity benefits. The Civil Pensions (Commutation) Rules have been applied with necessary modifications under Section 19. Provident Fund and Insurance have been provided in Section 20 and 20A and the authority competent to grant pension is the President of India. The provisions for Travelling Allowance, Facility of rent free house, Conveyance and Sumptuary Allowances as well as Exemption from Income Tax on certain perquisites or allowances are provided in the miscellaneous provisions from Sections 22 to Section 22D. Medical Facilities are provided under Section 23A. The provisions for Travelling Allowance, Facility of rent free house, Conveyance and Sumptuary Allowances as well as Exemption from Income Tax on certain perquisites or allowances are provided in the miscellaneous provisions from Sections 22 to Section 22D. Medical Facilities are provided under Section 23A. The subject matter with which we are presently concerned in respect of retired Judges makes a provision for medical facilities under Section 23D, which is extracted hereinunder: – “[23D(1) Every retired Judge shall, with effect from the date on which the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 1976 receives the assent of the President be entitled for himself and his family, to the same facilities as respects medical treatment and on the same conditions as a retired officer of the Central Civil Service, Class-I and his family, are entitled under any rules and orders of the Central Government for the time being in force. (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1) but subject to such conditions and restrictions as the Central Government may impose a retired Judge of the 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.]” The power to frame rules is provided for under Section 24 of the 1954 Act whereby the Central Government can by notification make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act which includes the framing of Rules relating to facilities for medical treatment and other conditions of services of a Judge as well as any other matter which has to be or may be prescribed. As quoted above, under sub-section (2) of Section 23D a retired Judge is entitled to any facilities of medical treatment which the State Government may extend to him in addition to as provided for in sub-section (1) thereof. Thus, the State Government has been empowered under the Act to extend any further facilities that it may choose to extend to the High Court Judges. Thus, the State Government has been empowered under the Act to extend any further facilities that it may choose to extend to the High Court Judges. The aforesaid Act is supplemented by the High Court Judges Rules, 1956 as amended up-to-date and the second proviso contained in Clause (a) to Rule 2, which is relevant for the present purpose, is extracted hereinunder: – “Provided further that, in respect of facilities for medical treatment and accommodation in hospitals: – (a) In the case of Judges of the High Courts other than the Delhi High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the rules and provisions as applicable to a Cabinet Minister of the State Government in which the principal seat of the High Court is situated, shall apply;” There are no other statutory provisions apart from the above except certain directions and clarifications which have been issued from time to time in respect of other allowances by the Central Government and the State Government which need not be delved into at this stage. The allowances admissible to the Ministers of a State Government can be legislated upon under Entry 40 of List II (State List). We are mentioning this as the above quoted rule of 1956 refers to the admissibility of medical facilities at par with Cabinet Ministers of the State. We may also mention that the medical facilities for Ministers are available under the Bihar Ministers Medical Attendance Rules. This is only to mention the previous existing provisions as now the medical facilities available to retired Judges have been modified by various orders of the Supreme Court that will be referred to hereinafter. Apart from the aforesaid post retirement benefits, there are several facilities that are being extended as protocol services throughout the various High Courts of the country including the Patna High Court to retired and former Judges including availability of Conveyance, Domestic Help and such other facilities to which we shall refer hereinafter. In the background aforesaid, there are four broad heads under which the issue raised needs to be addressed. (1) Medical Facilities (2) Conveyance Facilities (3) Secretarial and Domestic Help Facilities and (4) Protocol Services. In the background aforesaid, there are four broad heads under which the issue raised needs to be addressed. (1) Medical Facilities (2) Conveyance Facilities (3) Secretarial and Domestic Help Facilities and (4) Protocol Services. The Patna High Court had framed its own internal guidelines under the orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice known as the Patna High Court Guidelines Governing the Medical Claims of the Hon’ble Judges (Sitting and Former) of Patna High Court with effect from 1st October, 2008. In addition to the said guidelines, three administrative orders have been passed on 28th November, 2015, 20th May, 2016 and 18th May, 2018 in respect of reimbursement for denture, spectacles and for treatment under the system of Indigenous Medicines requiring a prior approval from the Chief Justice. (1). Medical Facilities The facilities for medical treatment of retired Judges has now been extensively dealt with in various orders passed from time to time by the Apex Court commencing from the judgment dated 31st March, 2014 in the case of P. Ramakrishnam Raju (supra) while disposing of the writ petitions had made certain observations. Contempt Petition No. 425-426/2015 was preferred in the Apex Court by Justice V.S. Dave alleging non-compliance of the said directions in the aforesaid judgment where notices were issued to all the States throughout the country including the State of Bihar. The matter proceeded in the said contempt petitions. The Apex Court time and again observed that the directions issued in the case of P. Ramakrishnam Raju (supra) were not being observed where certain affidavits were filed on behalf of the States in respect of post retirement allowances and in its order dated 27th October, 2015 referred to about the medical facilities being provided to retired Chief Justices and Judges at par with the Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court. It was also brought to the notice of the Apex Court about medical expenses being defrayed for treatment taken in private hospitals which has been referred to in the order in the aforesaid contempt petition dated 08.08.2017. It was also brought to the notice of the Apex Court about medical expenses being defrayed for treatment taken in private hospitals which has been referred to in the order in the aforesaid contempt petition dated 08.08.2017. The Supreme Court in its order dated 1st of December, 2017 in the said proceedings observed that information had been received from all the respective High Courts throughout the country and directed the Amicus Curiae Shri P.H. Parekh to submit a report with regard to the precise position that is prevalent in the different High Courts to enable the Apex Court to consider the feasibility of passing an order to be applied uniformally to all the High Courts. The report was submitted, as is evident from the order dated 22nd March, 2018 of the said proceedings and noticing the wide variants the Court observed that the medical benefits have to be considered in the presence of learned counsel of all the States of the Union as well as High Courts. Accordingly, all the Chief Secretaries of various State Governments were also intimated in respect thereof. On 18th April, 2018 the following order was passed: “The present exercise is directed towards bringing into effect parity in the matter of reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by retired Chief Justices/retired Judges of High Courts. At present, as it appears from the report submitted by Shri P.H. Parekh, learned Amicus Curiae, there is divergence in the practice and procedure followed while sanctioning and processing medical reimbursement claims. The conditions of service of Hon’ble Judges of the High Court including the Hon’ble Chief Justices being uniform all over the country it is highly desirable that the system of reimbursement of medical expenses is also uniform. Shri P.H. Parekh, learned Amicus Curiae in a written note circulated in Court today had made the following suggestions which, according to him, may bring about such uniformity. “(a) the Retired Judges of High Court and their family would be entitled to reimbursement of the medical expenses on prescription of government doctors/hospitals or registered medical practitioners/private hospitals; (b) The sanctioning authority will be the Registrar General of the concerned High Court who will exercise the power with the prior approval of the Chief Justice of High Court or his nominee; (c) The sanctioning authority will be the Registrar General with the approval of the Chief Justice of High Court or his nominee. (d) The extent of the benefit which the Retired Judges will be entitled to would be the same as is available to a sitting Judges of the High Courts.” Over and above Shri Parekh has suggested the following: “(ii) All State Governments should extend medical facilities to retired judges of High Courts and their family members throughout the country uniformly. (iii) There should not be any need to seek prior approval from the State Government before taking treatment in a private hospital or a non CGHS empanelled hospital. (iv) The retired judges and their family members should be allowed medical reimbursement for treatment taken in any State and the same should not be confined to the State where the Retired Judge is residing. The medical bills in such cases should be submitted to the Registrar General of the concerned High Court from where the Judge retired. (v) The State Governments may consider introducing cashless medical facility in hospitals/nursing homes wherever possible for the retired judges and their family members.” We are of the tentative view that the medical reimbursement of a retired Chief Justice and/or a retired judge of a High Court should be reimbursement of all medical expenses including hospital charges which a retired Chief Justice and/or a retired Judge of a High Court may have had to incur in connection with the medical treatment of himself and/or his/her dependent family members. Except for certain inadmissible items of expenditure, on which there can be no dispute, such reimbursement should extend to all items of expenditure including hospital charges. There is also a need to expedite the system/process of reimbursement which can be achieved if the power of sanctioning medical reimbursement is vested in the Hon’ble Chief Justice of a High Court who may, of course, delegate the same to his nominee(s)/assignee(s). As the practice in vogue is divergent and any order in this regard may have some financial implications in respect of some of the States/Union Territories we are of the view that all the States and Union Territories should be heard on the aforesaid aspect of the matter, particularly, on the suggestions offered by Shri P.H. Parekh, learned Amicus Curiae which have been extracted above. Coincidentally, we may mention that full reimbursement of all medical expenses, except inadmissible items, including hospital charges (private hospitals included) are fully reimbursable to a sitting and retired Hon’ble Judge of the Supreme Court. The sanctioning authority so far as the medical reimbursement of a sitting and retired Hon’ble Judge of the Supreme Court is the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India who has delegated the power to other Hon’ble sitting judges of this Court. In the event the States concerned would like to examine the policy and procedure in vogue in the Supreme Court the same would be available on the website of the Supreme Court which can be easily accessed. This may enable the States to offer their views in the matter, if required, by filing affidavit(s) of the Competent Authority. Keeping in mind the nature of the decision that the States would be required to adopt in the light of what has been indicated in the present order we fix the matter for filing of response/responses of all the States and the Union Territories on or before 10th July, 2018. The matter will now be heard on 24th July, 2018 at 2.00 p.m. for further orders.” Taking notice of the benefits being extended in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and Jharkhand the Court observed that the other States may be well advised to adopt the practices in the aforesaid States. This observation is contained in the order dated 24th July, 2018. Again in the order dated 25th September, 2018 the Apex Court observed about availability of medical reimbursement for treatment in hospitals outside the State and in private hospitals without the requirement of seeking approval from the State Government and cashless transactions in hospitals. The Court, therefore, sought certain clarifications in this regard and then the matter came up on 24th October, 2018 and a detail order was passed, which is extracted hereinunder: “ANDHRA PRADESH The Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh, Shri Anil Chandra Punetha, who has been summoned is present in-person. Unfortunately, he does not seem to be conversant with the reason(s) for which he had been asked to appear personally. This is evident from the statement made by the Chief Secretary that the matter pertains to the medical reimbursement of the Judicial Officers. Unfortunately, he does not seem to be conversant with the reason(s) for which he had been asked to appear personally. This is evident from the statement made by the Chief Secretary that the matter pertains to the medical reimbursement of the Judicial Officers. As we do not get any assistance from the Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh, we have no option but to peruse the affidavit filed on behalf of the State which is curiously sworn by the Chief Secretary himself. From the aforesaid affidavit, it becomes clear that the State of Andhra Pradesh will provide the same, if not better facilities, as is prevalent in the States of Jammu & Kashmir and Jharkhand. The State of Andhra Pradesh is directed to do so forthwith by issuing the necessary notification(s) which will be so done within a period of two weeks from today. As the Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh has rendered no assistance to Court his further presence in the Court is not required. ARUNACHAL PRADESH While considering the case of Arunachal Pradesh, we had an occasion to interact with Shri P.H. Parekh, learned amicus curiae, who represents the Association of Retired Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts of India. Shri Parekh has pointed out that the endeavour of the Court to have the medical facilities of retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Courts (including their spouses and dependent family members) on a uniform basis throughout the country can be best achieved if all the States/High Courts provide the following facilities : 1. All facilities at par with sitting Judges; 2. Reimbursement for medical treatment in private hospital without prior approval of the State Government; 3. Sanctioning authority to be the Registrar General of the High Court; 4. Reimbursement to be provided for treatment taken in any other State; and 5. Cashless facility. Insofar as State of Arunachal Pradesh is concerned, Shri Anil Shrivastav, learned standing counsel, on instructions from the Chief Secretary of the State, who is personally present (with whom we did not interact for reasons that are not required to be mentioned) has stated that the State of Arunachal Pradesh is ready to provide the facilities as indicated above though the facility of cashless transactions may take some time. The case of the State of Arunachal Pradesh is, therefore, closed and the further requirement of personal presence of the Chief Secretary is dispensed with. GOA Shri Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General, who appears for the State of Goa has submitted that the five facilities set out in the order passed today in respect of the State of Arunachal Pradesh including cashless transactions are being provided to the retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court (including their spouses and dependent family members). He has further submitted that insofar as cashless facility is concerned, there is a ceiling of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs). In view of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the State of Goa, which is reflected in the affidavit filed on 22.10.2018, we do not consider it necessary to pass any further direction. Further personal presence of the Chief Secretary is also dispensed with. HARYANA We have heard Shri Anil Grover, learned counsel for the State of Haryana and also Shri D.S. Dhesi, the Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana who has appeared personally pursuant to our order dated 25.09.2018. The Chief Secretary on being interacted with has informed the Court that all facilities for retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court (including their spouses and dependent family members) as indicated in the order passed in respect of the State of Arunachal Pradesh are being provided by the State of Haryana except cashless facility which aspect of the matter is under consideration of the State and orders as may be appropriate in this regard will be passed within six weeks from today. On the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the Chief Secretary, we do not consider it necessary to pass any further order/direction in the matter for the present. We make it clear that any contrary practice in vogue will cease to be followed and the directions contained in the present order, details of which have already been recorded in respect of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, will be henceforth implemented. Further personal presence of the Chief Secretary is not required. KARNATAKA Shri T.M. Vijay Bhaskar, Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka, is present today pursuant to our order dated 25.09.2018. Further personal presence of the Chief Secretary is not required. KARNATAKA Shri T.M. Vijay Bhaskar, Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka, is present today pursuant to our order dated 25.09.2018. The Chief Secretary on being interacted with has informed the Court that all facilities for retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court (including their spouses and dependent family members) as indicated in the order passed in respect of the State of Arunachal Pradesh are being provided by the State of Karnataka except cashless facility which aspect of the matter is under consideration of the State and orders as may be appropriate in this regard will be passed within six weeks from today. On the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the Chief Secretary, we do not consider it necessary to pass any further order/direction in the matter for the present. The personal presence of the Chief Secretary is dispensed with. We make it clear that any contrary practice in vogue will cease to be followed and the directions contained in the present order details of which have already been recorded in respect of the State of Arunachal Pradesh will be henceforth implemented. MANIPUR The Chief Secretary of the State of Manipur for reasons acceptable has not been able to appear before this Court. Instead, Shri M.H. Khan, the Additional Chief Secretary is present. He has been heard. The affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Manipur dated 01.10.2018 has been read and considered. Apparently, none of the five facilities which we have indicated in respect of the retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court are being provided either to sitting Judges or retired Judges of the High Court of Manipur. The Additional Chief Secretary has left the matter to the Court and has stated that if directed the State of Manipur will grant similar medical facilities to retired Chief Justices and Judges (including their spouses and dependent family members) as is being provided by other States. To enable us to take the said statement on record and issue further directions, we direct the Additional Chief Secretary to file an affidavit to the above effect. The said affidavit may be filed in the course of the day whereafter appropriate orders will be passed. To enable us to take the said statement on record and issue further directions, we direct the Additional Chief Secretary to file an affidavit to the above effect. The said affidavit may be filed in the course of the day whereafter appropriate orders will be passed. List the case of the Manipur at 2.00 p.m. At 2.00 p.m. The Additional Chief Secretary of the Government of Manipur has filed an affidavit. Insofar as other States are concerned, the facilities provided/to be provided to the retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court are : 1. All facilities at par with sitting Judges; 2. Reimbursement for medical treatment in private hospital without prior approval of the State Government; 3. Sanctioning authority to be the Registrar General of the High Court; 4. Reimbursement to be provided for treatment taken in any other State; and 5. Cashless facility. The State of Manipur, therefore, would be duty bound in terms of the statements contained in the affidavit to provide the aforesaid five facilities to the retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court (including their spouses and dependent family members). Further personal presence of the Chief Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary is also dispensed with. MIZORAM List the case of State of Mizoram at 2.00p.m. At 2.00 p.m. Mr. Arvind Ray, the Chief Secretary, Government of Mizoram is present today pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 25.09.2018. He has been heard. The affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Mizoram has also been duly considered. The Chief Secretary has stated before the Court that medical facilities to the retired Chief Justices and Judges (including spouses and dependent family members) at par with other States will be made available on and from now. The details of such medical facilities (5 in number) are as under : 1. All facilities at par with sitting Judges; 2. Reimbursement for medical treatment in private hospital without prior approval of the State Government; 3. Sanctioning authority to be the Registrar General of the High Court; 4. Reimbursement to be provided for treatment taken in any other State; and 5. Cashless facility. All facilities at par with sitting Judges; 2. Reimbursement for medical treatment in private hospital without prior approval of the State Government; 3. Sanctioning authority to be the Registrar General of the High Court; 4. Reimbursement to be provided for treatment taken in any other State; and 5. Cashless facility. The Government of Mizoram shall issue a notification to the aforesaid effect and implement the undertaking made before this Court forthwith and without any delay as and when claim(s) of medical reimbursement/facilities is/are raised by the retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court (including their spouses and dependent family members). Further personal presence of the Chief Secretary is not required. TELANGANA For the reasons shown, personal appearance of the Chief Secretary of the State of Telangana by this Court on 25.09.2018 is dispensed with. We have heard Shri Harin P. Raval, learned senior counsel, appearing for the State of Telangana and Shri V. Niranjan Rao, Secretary (Law), who is personally present. We have perused the affidavit dated 11.10.2018 filed on behalf of the State of Telangana. The State of Telangana is providing all facilities to retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court (including their spouses and dependent family members) which are at par with what has been observed by this Court in connection with the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Insofar as cashless facility is concerned, the Law Secretary has assured the Court that the matter would be examined at an appropriate level and a decision will be taken in this regard within the next six weeks. In view of the above, no further orders will be called for in respect of the State of Telengana at this stage. UTTARAKHAND The Chief Secretary of the State of Uttarakhand is present today. We have interacted with the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttarakhand. It appears that the State of Uttarakhand insists on prior approval for treatment outside the State in routine cases, though naturally, in case of emergency/emergencies such prior approval is not required. The Chief Secretary has also apprised us of the total number of cases where retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court have taken treatment in hospital(s) outside the State and the cost involved. The Chief Secretary has also apprised us of the total number of cases where retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court have taken treatment in hospital(s) outside the State and the cost involved. The Chief Secretary shall reconsider the matter of prior approval for treatment outside the State and also consider the facility of cashless treatment as has been agreed to by some other states as indicated in the present order. The Chief Secretary will file an affidavit of the action taken in terms of this Order within four weeks from today. The case of the State of Uttarakhand is kept open for further orders on the next date fixed. List after four weeks. Further personal appearance of the Chief Secretary is dispensed with unless the affidavit directed to be filed proves to be unsatisfactory. DELHI Shri Anshu Prakash, Chief Secretary of the N.C.T. of Delhi is personally present. He has been heard. It appears that insofar as retired Chief Justices and Judges of the Delhi High Court (including their spouses and dependent family members) are concerned, all medical facilities as indicated in the order in respect of State of Arunachal Pradesh herein above have been made available with certain additional benefits, as for example, retired Chief Justices and Judges of the Delhi High Court who have been transferred out of Delhi or elevated to the High Courts of other States and have now been settled in Delhi after retirement are also entitled to such privileges. Cashless facility is also available in around 259 accredited/CGHS approved hospitals. The authority for reimbursement is the Registrar General of the High Court. The treatment outside the State is also taken care of except the rates at which the reimbursement is made are the CGHS rates/under the Scheme. No further order will be called for at this stage. Further personal presence of the Chief Secretary is not required. OTHER STATES Insofar as other States/High Courts are concerned, we make it clear that medical facilities for retired Chief Justices/Judges (including spouses and dependent family members) will be at par as indicated in our previous order while dealing with the case of Arunachal Pradesh. We also make it clear that if any State would like to offer even better medical facilities than what has been indicated in our present order, as above, it will be certainly open for the States/High Courts to do so. We also make it clear that if any State would like to offer even better medical facilities than what has been indicated in our present order, as above, it will be certainly open for the States/High Courts to do so. Shri P.H. Parekh, learned amicus curiae, will collate the required information from all concerned States as to the actual implementation of our present directions and in the event any State is found to be in default, Shri Parekh is requested to inform the Court by means of a written application.” The State of Bihar, therefore, in the light of above may bring on record the compliance made in respect to the aforesaid directions issued from time to time by the next date fixed. In addition to the above facilities, emergency conveyance facilities and medical facilities obtained in emergency while travelling abroad also have to be taken notice of. This would also include the facility to sitting Judges as well. The State of Bihar will also incorporate its view or decision in respect thereof in the affidavit that shall be filed by the next date fixed. In respect of other facilities under Head Nos. 2, 3 and 4, it would be appropriate to quote Paragraphs 25 to 29 of the judgment in the case of P. Ramakrishnam Raju (supra). The same is extracted hereinunder: – “Civil Appeals Nos. 4248-49 of 2014 [arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 9558-59 of 2010] 25. Leave granted. At the instance of the Association of Retired Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur directed the State Government to pay a sum of Rs. 9000 per month to a retired Chief Justice of the High Court to meet expenses of domestic help/peon/driver/telephone expenses and secretarial assistance, etc. and Rs. 7500 per month to a retired Judge of the High Court for the same purposes. The said order shall be effective from 1-2-2010. Questioning the same, the State of Rajasthan has filed the above appeal. 26. With reference to the above claim and the order of the High Court, in the Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of the High Courts held on 18-9-2004, the following resolution was passed: “18. Augmenting of post-retiral benefits of Judges. Questioning the same, the State of Rajasthan has filed the above appeal. 26. With reference to the above claim and the order of the High Court, in the Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of the High Courts held on 18-9-2004, the following resolution was passed: “18. Augmenting of post-retiral benefits of Judges. * * * (vi) As regards post-retiral benefits to the retired Judges of the High Courts, the scheme sanctioned by the State of Andhra Pradesh be adopted and followed in all the States, except where better benefits are already available.” 27. It is brought to our notice that in pursuance of the said Resolution, most of the States in the country have extended various postretiral benefits to the retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of the respective High Courts. By GOMs No. 28 dated 16-3-2012 issued by the Law Department, the Government of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned an amount of Rs. 14,000 per month to the retired Chief Justices of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and an amount of Rs. 12,000 per month to the retired Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for defraying the services of an orderly, driver, security guard, etc. and for meeting expenses incurred towards secretarial assistance on contract basis and a residential telephone free of cost with number of free calls to the extent of 1500 per month over and above the number of free calls per month allowed by the telephone authorities to both the retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 1-4-2012. 28. While appreciating the steps taken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and other States who have already formulated such scheme, by this order, we hope and trust that the States who have not so far framed such scheme will formulate the same, depending on the local conditions, for the benefit of the retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of the respective High Courts as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 29. All the writ petitions and the appeals are disposed of on the above terms. 29. All the writ petitions and the appeals are disposed of on the above terms. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, no orders are required in the intervention application.” It appears that certain observations were made from time to time in the contempt proceedings before the Apex Court in the case of Justice V.S. Dave vs. Kusumjit Sidhu & Ors., the reference whereof has been made in relation to the extending of medical benefits hereinabove. There does not appear to have been any final deliberation by the Apex Court in respect of the other facilities to be extended for augmenting the post retiral benefits of Judges of the High Courts except pensionary benefits. It is in this background that we may now proceed to refer to the other heads vis-à-vis the situation prevailing in the Patna High Court. (2) Conveyance Facilities: In this regard, the order of the Chief Justice dated 7th March, 2008 as notified by the Registrar General is extracted hereinunder: “NOTICE The sitting and retired Hon’ble Judge of the Supreme Court and/or any High Court who are on visit to Patna shall be received and sent off by the Protocol Section of the High Court and the expenses incurred thereon shall be borne by the High Court. The High Court will not bear any other expenses incurred during the visit of the Hon’ble Judges.” It appears that in order to formalize the availability of Pool Car facilities earlier there were rules that had been framed known as “Patna High Court Pool Cars Rules, 1997”. That was promulgated under the order of the then Chief Justice dated 11th August, 1997. The same was amended from time to time and was again re-framed in the year, 2011. The said 2011 Rules were promulgated by the then Chief Justice vice order dated 9th of January, 2012. Even though the said rules are captioned as rules, the same do not have any approval of the State Government and appears to have been made as an internal arrangement by the High Court for its own purposes. The said 2011 Rules were promulgated by the then Chief Justice vice order dated 9th of January, 2012. Even though the said rules are captioned as rules, the same do not have any approval of the State Government and appears to have been made as an internal arrangement by the High Court for its own purposes. The relevant parts of the rule are extracted hereinunder: Rule 3(c) defines a Judge as follows: “3(c) ‘Judge’ means sitting/retired Hon’ble Judge of the Supreme Court of India or of a sitting Judge of the High Court of any State in India;” Rules 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are extracted hereinunder: – “9. The concerned Judge will not be liable to pay any charge for utilization of Pool Car in case of allotment of Pool Car for official purpose or in case of break down. 10. Unless the charge is not leviable as per Rule 9, the Judge requisitioning Pool Car will be liable to pay charges for use and retention of the Pool Car on the basis of the distance and time covered as per the Schedule hereinunder. For computation of charges under this Rule the distance covered will be the distance travelled by the Pool Car from the Court garage and back to the Court garage. The Chief Justice will modify the Schedule as required. 11. The Pool Car may be used: – (a) For journeys within the limit of the Patna Municipal Corporation; (b) For journeys outside Patna with the permission of the Chief Justice. 12. The Officer-incharge will draw bills for the use and retention of the Pool Car. On presentation of the bill by the Officer-in-charge, the requisition will make payment either in cash or by cheque drawn in favour of the Registrar General of the High Court to the Officer-incharge. The Officer-in-charge will issue receipt for the cash or cheque received by him. In case of a Judge visiting from other States, the Officer-in-incharge may authorize the concerned Driver to receive remittance of cash or cheque from the requisitionist and to issue receipt for such remittance. 13. The Officer-in-charge will issue receipt for the cash or cheque received by him. In case of a Judge visiting from other States, the Officer-in-incharge may authorize the concerned Driver to receive remittance of cash or cheque from the requisitionist and to issue receipt for such remittance. 13. The Chief Justice may by order dispense with or relax the requirements of any rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as the Chief Justice may consider necessary in any particular case considering the exigencies of the circumstances.” The schedule to the said rule is extracted hereinunder: “SCHEDULE For utilization of the Pool Car for private (non-official) use the charge will be payable as under: For Pool Car (Esteem) The amount computed at Rs. 10/- per kilometer. In addition to the amount so computed for overnight retention of the Pool Car, a retention charge of Rs. 150/- per night halt. For Utility Vehicle The amount computed at Rs. 8/- per kilometer. In addition to the amount so computed for overnight retention a retention charge of Rs. 150/- per night halt. Explanation. – Retention of the Pool Car or the Utility Vehicle for the period from 10.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. or any part thereof will be treated as overnight retention.” A perusal of the same would indicate that any Judge availing of the benefits of a Pool Car has to bear the charges as indicated therein. The aforesaid services were relaxed being extended to a former Judge who is the Chairman of a Tribunal under the orders of the Chief Justice dated 25.10.2017. For providing emergency conveyance facilities for medical treatment, a proposal has been made, which is evident from the minutes of the meeting of a Committee constituted by the then Chief Justice in the deliberations dated 26th January, 2019. It may be mentioned that the minutes dated 1st October, 2015 that had been recorded by a learned Judge were approved by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice on 07.11.2015 and upon being placed before the Standing Committee a resolution was passed on 17th July, 2018 for a fresh deliberation, whereafter the proposals were made in the resolution dated 26th January, 2019 that are pending consideration. Since this matter also concerns the conveyance facilities being provided even to retired Judges, the same may have to be dealt with accordingly and as medical facilities to retired Judges are available at par with sitting Judges the same may have to be deliberated upon in relation to conveyance expenses and facilities as well. The State Government and the High Court will file their affidavits accordingly on this aspect as well. The Registrar General shall also obtain information from other High Courts as observed in the deliberations of the Committee of the two Hon’ble Judges dated 26th January, 2019. (3) Secretarial and Domestic Help Facilities and (4) Protocol Facilities: Coming to the issues of Secretarial and Domestic Help facilities as well as the Protocol facilities, the State Government on 21st February, 2013 had issued a notification resolving that for the purpose of Domestic Help, an allowance of Rs. 10,000/- to a retired Chief Justice and Rs. 8,000/- to a retired Judge shall be admissible. Financial sanction was also accorded under the said resolution. The Patna High Court through its internal arrangement prepared a Domestic Help Scheme, 2014 that was adopted by the Chief Justice under the order dated 10th December, 2014. An option of cash benefit as against a Domestic Help has been provided for therein and which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In a Full Court meeting on 18th May, 2016 a modified draft of the said scheme formulated in 2016 was adopted. It appears that the said scheme has been forwarded to the State Government, but it appears in view of the order passed in the case of P. Ramakrishnam Raju (supra) by the Apex Court the State Government issued a notification on 5th of July, 2016 resolving to extend the benefit to the extent of Rs. 14,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- respectively to a retired Chief Justice and to a retired Judge respectively. It also appears that since the said notification was not exactly in conformity with the directions, the same was again modified by the State Government on 10th July, 2017 by also extending the benefit of reimbursement for 1500 telephone calls per month with effect from 1st October, 2014 and also issued directions for payment of arrears in this regard effective from the said date. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said does not meet the resolutions dated 24th April, 2016 and 27th April, 2016 in the conference of the Chief Ministers of the States and the Chief Justices of the High Court or the Domestic Help Schemes referred to above. On the administrative side, it appears that these facts were noted by the Chief Justice in his response to the petitioners. In order to assess the financial involvement of such facilities, the High Court while filing its affidavit shall give the names and details of all the Hon’ble retired Judges and Chief Justices of the High Court and the names of the widows of such of the Hon’ble Judges who have passed away. The High Court shall specifically provide another list as to how many Domestic Helps have been provided by the High Court to any of the former Judges of this Court who may have retired as Judges/Chief Justices or Judges of the Supreme Court who have been former Judges of this Court. In the event no Domestic Help is being availed of from the High Court, then a list with regard to those Judges who are drawing Domestic Help Allowance provided by the State Government shall also be attached separately. The Court is also informed that vide letter dated 15th February, 2019 information was given by the Superintendent of Police (Security) that there is no provision for extending the benefit of any security services from the police either as a shadow or a guard to former and retired Judges of this Court. The State Government while filing its affidavit will also incorporate its view and opinion on the same. The State Government will also consider extending of any reciprocal benefits pertaining to such facilities of retired Judges in respect of protocol who are retired Judges of other High Courts of the country and as to whether any such reciprocal agreement did exist in the past or even exist in the present shall be informed to the Court. The State Government is, therefore, directed to deliberate upon these issues and to inform the Court as to the decision taken in respect of augmenting the post retiral facilities and allowances including Domestic Help as well as other facilities referred to above at the earliest by the next date fixed. The State Government is, therefore, directed to deliberate upon these issues and to inform the Court as to the decision taken in respect of augmenting the post retiral facilities and allowances including Domestic Help as well as other facilities referred to above at the earliest by the next date fixed. The learned Advocate General may file a response to the same and the Registrar General shall also file an affidavit on behalf of the High Court covering the aforesaid issues. A copy of the affidavit to be filed by the High Court shall be provided to the learned Advocate General also. List on 10th July, 2019. ” 2. The State Government through its Under Secretary has filed an affidavit on 27th July, 2019 bringing on record the steps taken by the State Government in respect of the medical facilities being extended to all Judges (Retired and Sitting) and also the Rules framed by the State Government through the notification dated 24th July, 2019 extending domestic help. 3. The State Government through its Under Secretary has filed an affidavit on 27th July, 2019 bringing on record the steps taken by the State Government in respect of the medical facilities being extended to all Judges (Retired and Sitting) and also the Rules framed by the State Government through the notification dated 24th July, 2019 extending domestic help. 3. With regard to medical facilities, the proceedings of the meeting held on 14th February, 2019 under the Chairmanship of the Additional Chief Secretary, Home and General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, which has been filed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit is extracted hereinunder: – ^^fnukad 14-02-2019 dk eq[; lfpo] fcgkj dh vè;{krk esa vk;ksftr mPpLrjh; cSBd dh dk;Zokgh& mifLFkfr%& 1- Jh vkfej lqcgkuh] vij eq[; lfpo] x`g ,oa lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx] fcgkj iVukA 2- Jh MkWñ ,lñ fl)kFkZ] izèkku lfpo] foÙk foHkkx] fcgkj] iVukA 3- Jh vf[kys'k dqekj tSu] lfpo≶&fofèk ijke'khZ] fofèk foHkkx] fcgkj] iVukA 4- Jh lrh'k dqekj flag] vij lfpo] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx] fcgkj] iVukA 5- Jh fefFkys'k fe+J] egkfujh{kd] dkjk ,oa lqèkkj lsok,¡] fcgkj] iVukA 6- Jh jke bZ'oj] la;qDr lfpo] LokLF; foHkkx] fcgkj iVukA loZ izFke cSBd esa mifLFkr inkfèkdkfj;ksa dk Lokxr fd;k x;k ,oa fofHkUu vkfJrksa ls lacafèkr fcUnqvksa ij fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fy;s x;s%& ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk orZeku ,oa lsokfuo`Ùk U;k;kèkh'kksa o muds vkfJrksa ds fpfdRlk izfriwfrZ ds lacaèk esa fuèkkZfjr 5 ¼ik¡p½ fcUnqvksa esa ls tgk¡ rd fcUnq 01 ls 04 rd dk iz'u gS] bl lacaèk esa mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Lo;a xkbMykabl@vfèklwpuk tkjh fd;k x;k gSA mDr xkbMykbal ds vkyksd esa ,MokbZtjh dfeVh ds fOk;w@fjiksVZ dks vkns'k gsrq ekuuh; eq[; U;k;kèkh'k ds le{k izLrqr fd;s tkus dk izkoèkku gS] tcfd ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; esa LohÑfr izkfèkdkj jftLVªkj tujy] mPp U;k;ky; dks j[kus dk funs'k gS] bl lacaèk esa mPp U;k;ky; Lo;a fu.kZ; ysus esa l{ke gSA tgk¡ rd fcUnq&05 dS'kys'k lqfoèkk dk iz'u gS] bl lacaèk esa fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd LokLF; foHkkx fcgkj esa fLFkr lhñthñ,pñ,lñ ls ekU;rk izkIr vLirkyksa ls lgefr ysdj 3-00 ¼rhu½ yk[k rd dh jkf'k dh dS'kysl lqfoèkk orZeku ,oa lsokfuo`Ùk U;k;kèkh'k o muds ifjokj dks nsus ds lacaèk esa fu.kZ; ysdj vko';d vfèklwpuk tkjh djsxkA mDr jkf'k ls vfèkd O;; gksus okyh jkf'k dh izfriwfrZ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk cuk;h x;h Xkkblaykbl ds vkèkkj ij fd;k tk ldsxk rFkk ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd LokLF; foHkkx }kjk jftLVªkj tujy] iVuk mPp U;k;ky; ls vuqjksèk fd;k tk ldrk gS fd lsokfuo`Ùk ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZx.k ds dS'kysl lqfoèkk gsrq ,d dkMZ ftlesa ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZ o muds Likml o vkfJr cPpksa dk QksVks] vkèkkj uEcj lfgr ,d igpku i= rS;kj djk;k tk;] ftls LokLF; foHkkx vius xkbZMykbZu esa vafdr djsA ¼dkjZokbZ&LokLF foHkkx½ 2- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds funsZ'k fnukad 17-01-2019 ds vkyksd esa fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd foÙk foHkkx }kjk tkjh edku fdjk;k HkÙkk ls lacafèkr vkns'kksa ds vuqlkj U;kf;d inkfèkdkfj;ksa dks edku fdjk;k HkÙkk ns; gksxkA tgk¡ fdlh U;kf;d inkfèkdkjh us vius iz;kl ls] ik=rk ds vuqlkj] fdjk;s dk vkokl fy;k gks ftldk fdjk;k vuqekU; edku fdjk;k HkÙkk ls vfèkd gks rks varj dh èku jkf'k ds fuèkkZj.k ,oa lek;kstu gsrq foÙk foHkkx }kjk fn'kkfunsZ'k@ladYi 'kh?kz tkjh dh tk;sxhA ¼dkjZokbZ&foÙk foHkkx½ 3- izèkku lfpo] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx vjoy ftyk esa ftyk dkjk ,oa U;kf;d Hkou fuekZ.k ds lacaèk esa viuk Li"V rF; dFku /(Statement of facts) fnukad 15-02-2019 rd vo'; ns nsa] ftlls fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fnukad &18-02-2019 rd ljdkj dh rjQ ls 'kiFk&i= nkf[ky fd;k tk ldsA ¼dkjZokbZ&Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx½ 4- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds i=kad& 6627 fnukad & 22-01-19 ds vkyksd esa fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd foÙk foHkkx bu 8 bZuksok fØLVk xkfM+;ksa dks okil ysus ds lacaèk esa dkjZokbZ djsa rFkk mDr xkfM+;kas dks eq[; lfpo&1 okgu] vij eq[; lfpo] f'k{kk] lekt dY;k.k] lkekU; iz'kklu ,oa ou ,oa Ik;kZoj.k foHkkx] ,d&,d okgu dqy 4 okgu] ftyk inkfèkdkjh] iVuk] 2 okgu] Uk;kpkj ds rgr vkxUrqd vfr fof'k"V egkuqHkkoksa ds vkokxeu gsrq ¼ohñ ohñ vkbZñ ihñ ewoesUV½ ,oa ftyk inkfèkdkjh] x;k] 1 okgu] u;kpkj ds rgr vkxUrqd vfr fof'k"V egkuqHkkoksa ds vkokxeu gsrq ¼ohñ ohñ vkbZñ ihñ ewoesUV½ dks forfjr djus lacaèkh vkns'k fuxZr djsaA ¼dkjZokbZ&foÙk foHkkx½ 5- foÙk foHkkx }kjk crk;k x;k fd tsujsVj lsV ds lacaèk esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk chek lacaèkh izkoèkku ljdkj esa ugha gSA vUr esa lèkU;okn cSBd dh dk;Zokgh lekIr dh x;hA ¼eq[; lfpo] fcgkj½** 4. The said proceedings propose extension of cashless facilities to be made available in respect of treatment from hospitals. The issue with regard to medical facilities is already engaging the attention of the Apex Court in the case of Justice V.S. Dave vs. Kusumjit Sidhu in Contempt Petition (C) No.425- 426/2015 arising out of writ petition No.523 of 2002. Taking notice of the orders passed therein, the State Government issued a letter to the Registrar General of the Patna High Court on 17th of May, 2019 requesting the High Court for preparation of an identity card in respect of the recipients for availing of the cashless facilities referred to above. The said letter is appended as Annexure-C and extracted hereinunder: – ^^lañ lañ &14@,eñ lhñ 12@18 953@¼14½ fcgkj ljdkj LokLF; foHkkx Lekj&ik=k isz"kd] jke bZ'oj la;qDr lfpo] LokLF; foHkkx] fcgkj] iVukA lsok esa] egkfucaèkd] iVuk mPp U;k;ky;] iVukA fo"k; %& Contempt Petition © Nos. 425-426/2015 in writ petition (C) No- 523/2002 Justice V.S Dave, The President, The association of Retired Judges of Supreme Court of India and High Court V/S Kusumjit Sidhu & Others. 425-426/2015 in writ petition (C) No- 523/2002 Justice V.S Dave, The President, The association of Retired Judges of Supreme Court of India and High Court V/S Kusumjit Sidhu & Others. izlax& foHkkxh; i=kad & 771 ¼14½- fnukad & 16-04-19 ,oa 902 ¼14½ fnukad & 07-05-19- egk'k;] funs'kkuqlkj mi;ZqDr izklafxd i= ds lanHkZ esa dguk gS fd blds vkyksd esa Hkonh; Lrj ls d`r dkjZokbZ dh lwpuk vizkIr gSA fo"k;kafdr voekuuk okn esa fnukad & 30-04-19 dks ikfjr U;k;kns'k ds vuqikyukFkZ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk ds lsokjr ,oa lsokfuo`Ùk ekuuh; U;k;kèkh'k dks fpfdRlk lqfoèkk miyCèk djk;k tkuk gSA mYys[k gS fd fnukad & 14-02-19 dks eq[; lfpo] fcgkj dh vè;{krk esa vk;ksftr mPp Lrjh; cSBd esa fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd LokLF; foHkkx] fcgkj esa fLFkr lhth,p,l ls ekU;rk izkIr vLirkyksa ls lgefr ysdj 3]00]000@&¼rhu yk[k½ rd dh jkf'k dh dS'kysl lqfoèkk oÙkZeku ,oa lsokfuo`Ùk ekuuh; U;k;kèkh'k o muds ifjokj dks nsus ds lacaèk esa fu.kZ; ysdj vko';d vfèklwpuk tkjh fd;k tkuk gSA mDr jkf'k ls vfèkd O;; gksus okyh jkf'k dh izfriwfÙkZ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk cuk;h x;h ekxZnf'kZdk ds vkèkkj ij fd;k tk ldsxkA rFkk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd LokLF; foHkkx }kjk jftLVªkj tujy] ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; ls vuqjksèk fd;k tk ldrk gS fd lsokfuo`Ùk ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZx.k ds dS'kysl lqfoèkk gsrq ,d dkMZ ftlesa ekuuh; U;k;ewfÙkZ o muds LikmLk o vkfJr cPpksa dk QksVks vkèkkj uEcj lfgr ,d igpku i= rS;kj djk;k tk; ftls LokLF; foHkkx vius vfèklwpuk esa vafdr djsA mDr ds vkyksd esa lhth,p,l vLirkyksa ds lkFk dS'kysl rhu yk[k :i;s rd bZykt ds ckjs mifLFkr lhth,p,l vLirkyksa ds izfrfufèk }kjk lgefr izkIr dh xbZ gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; esa izLrqr okn dh lquokbZ gsrq vkxkeh laHkkfor frfFk &01-07-2019 gSA vr% mi;qZDr ds vkyksd esa vuqjksèk gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa lsokjr ,oa lsokfuo`Ùk ekuuh; U;k;kèkh'kksa o muds Likml o vkfJr cPps dk QksVks vkèkkj uEcj lfgr ,d igpku rS;kj fd;k tk; rkfd LokLF; foHkkx }kjk vius fn'kk&funsZ'k esa bls 'kkfey fd;k tk ldsA Ñi;k bls mPp izkFkfedrk nsuk pkgsaxsA vuqñ& ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dh U;k;kns'k dh izfr layXuA fo'oklHkktu gñ@& ¼jke bZ'oj½ la;qDr lfpo LokLF; foHkkx] fcgkj] iVukA** 5. The State Government took a decision identifying the C.G.H.S. approved hospitals from where cashless facilities can be availed of. The State Government took a decision identifying the C.G.H.S. approved hospitals from where cashless facilities can be availed of. This list which appears to have been issued by the Joint Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, dated 1st of April, 2019, is extracted hereinunder: “File No. 14/mc -12/18 - 680(14) dt. 02.04.19. izèkku lfpo] LokLF; foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk dh vè;{krk esa jkT; ds lhth,p,l vLirkyksa ds vèkh{kd@funs'kd ds lkFk fnukad &27-03-19 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk ds lsokjr ,oa lsokfuo`Ùk ekuuh; U;k;kèkh'kksa ,oa muds vkfJrksa dks dS'kysl fpfdRlk lqfoèkk miyCèk djkus gsrq leh{kkRed cSBd dh dk;ZokghA cSBd dh vè;{krk Jh jkèks';ke lkg] fo'ks"k lfpo] LokLF; foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk }kjk dh xbZ bl cSBd esa Jh jke bZ'oj] la;qDr lfpo] LokLF; foHkkx ¼izHkkjh iz'kk[kk&14½ Hkh mifLFkr FksaA bl cSBd esa jkT; ds lhth,p,l vLirkyksa ds fuEuafdr vèkh{kd@funs'kd mifLFkr gq,%& Øñ Ukke ,oa inuke LakLFkku lnL;ksa dk uke 1. Vijit Vivek, Sr. Manager Operation Mob:-9835026747 Jeevak Heart  Hospital and  Research Institute  Pvt. Ltd, 6 Doctors Colony, Kankar-bagh, Patna-20 2. Brajendra Kumar Jha, Sr. Executive Corporate Mob:-9430956752 Medica Magadh  Hospital, Road  No.- 2B, Rajendra Nagar, Patna-16 3. Col (Ret.) K.S. Sinha, GM Mob:-8873037805 Ruban Emergency  Hospital (A unit of  Basudeo Health Foundation Pvt. Ltd.), Ashraf Clinic Complex, S.P. Verma Road, Patna-01 4. Ranjan Kumar, Corporate Manager Mob:-9102882222 Sri Sai Hospital (A  unit of Akhilesh  Kumar Singh Hospital Pvt. Ltd.), Patna-20, Plot #DS/2. Behind Geological Survey of India, Near Mahendra Lok Apartment, Kankar-bagh 5. Satyenda Singh, Manager Mob:-9334558300 Rajeshwar Hospital,  Near Bahadurpur  Flyover, Main Road, Kankarbagh, Patna-20 6. Sanjay Srivastwa Marketing Manager Mob:-9102698973/94 Ford Hospital and  Research Centre  Pvt. Ltd., NH-30, New Bye Pass, Khemnichak, Patna- 27 7. Anupam Singh Manager Marketing Mob:-8797040500 PARAS HMRI  Hospital, Raza  Bazar, Patna 8. CAO  Mob:-9430013835 Divya Dristi Eye  Centre Pvt. Ltd.  Mangal Market, Sheikhpura, Raja Bazar, Patna-14 9. Sri Chandeshwar Anand, Consultant Mob:-9471002356 Sri Sai Lions  Netralaya, B-144,  P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna 10. Dr. L.B. Singh Mob:-9334388999 Mahavir Cancer  Hospital, Phulwari Sharif, Patna-801505 11. Barun Kumar, Administrator Mob:-9709994787 S. S. Hospital,  Malahi Pakri Chowk, Kankarbagh, Patna-20 12. CAO  Mob:-9430013835 Divya Dristi Eye  Centre Pvt. Ltd.  Mangal Market, Sheikhpura, Raja Bazar, Patna-14 9. Sri Chandeshwar Anand, Consultant Mob:-9471002356 Sri Sai Lions  Netralaya, B-144,  P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna 10. Dr. L.B. Singh Mob:-9334388999 Mahavir Cancer  Hospital, Phulwari Sharif, Patna-801505 11. Barun Kumar, Administrator Mob:-9709994787 S. S. Hospital,  Malahi Pakri Chowk, Kankarbagh, Patna-20 12. Santosh Kumar Marketing Manager Mob:- 7070094822 Vedanta Centre for  Ophthalmic  Sciences, 2nd floor, Legend Plaza, Near Passport Office, Ashiana-Digha Road, Samanpura, Patna-14 cSBd esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; esa nk;j okn Contempt Petition (C) Nos 425-426/2015 in Writ Petition (C) No 523/2002 esa fnukad 24-10-18 dks ikfjr U;k;kns'k ,oa rnuqlkj fnukad & 14-02-2019 dks eq[; lfpo] fcgkj dh vè;{krk esa vk;ksftr cSBd dh dk;Zokgh ¼Kkikad&1393] fnukad &15-02-2019½ ds vkyksd esa fo"k;kafdr ekeys esa mifLFkr vèkh{kd@funs'kd ls fuEukafdr fcUnq ij lgefr izkIr dh xbZ% ^^LokLF; foHkkx esa fcgkj esa fLFkr lhth,p,l ls ekU;rk izkIr vLirkyksa ls lgefr ysdj rhu yk[k rd dh jkf'k dh dS'kysl lqfoèkk orZeku ,oa lsokfuo`Ùk ekuuh; U;k;kèkh'kksa ,oa muds ifjokj dks nsus ds lacaèk esa fu.kZ; ysdj vfèklwpuk fuxZr djsxkA** mDr fcUnq ij mifLFkr lHkh fpfdRlk laLFkkuksa }kjk lhth,p,l nj ij bZykt djus gsrq lgefr iznku dh xbZA bl lacaèk esa vfèklwpuk tkjh@vafre fu.kZ; ds iwoZ lacafèkr fpfdRlk laLFkkuksa ds lkFk ,d cSBd iqu% fd;s tkus dh lgefr cuhA Hkkoh cSBd dh lwpuk lHkh lacafèkr dks ckn esa le; nh tk;sxhA èkU;okn Kkiu ds ckn cSBd lekIr fd;k x;kA gñ @& ¼jke bZ'oj½ la;qDr lfpo LokLF; foHkkx] fcgkj] iVukA** 6. We had already noticed the developments that were taking place before the Apex Court in our order dated 28.3.2018 extracted hereinabove. Learned counsel for the High Court has informed about the latest order passed on 25th of July, 2019 by the Apex Court where directions have been issued to the respective State Governments, including the State of Bihar for finalizing the implementation of the orders passed by the Apex Court in this respect and the case has been directed to come up on 26th September, 2019. The order dated 25th July, 2019 is extracted hereinunder: – “We have heard Shri P.H. Parekh, learned Amicus Curiae and we have also considered the written note submitted by him with regard to the present stage of implementation of this Court’s order dated 24.10.2018 read with the order dated 30th April, 2019. The order dated 25th July, 2019 is extracted hereinunder: – “We have heard Shri P.H. Parekh, learned Amicus Curiae and we have also considered the written note submitted by him with regard to the present stage of implementation of this Court’s order dated 24.10.2018 read with the order dated 30th April, 2019. By the aforesaid two orders which were rendered with a view to bring about uniformity in respect of the medical facilities of retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of the High Courts, including their spouses and dependent family members, the following directions were issued to govern the issue: – “1. All facilities at par with sitting Judges; 2. Reimbursement for medical treatment in private hospital without prior approval of the State Government. 3. Sanctioning authority to be the Registrar General of the High Court; 4. Reimbursement to be provided for treatment taken in any other State; and 5. Cashless facility.” We would like to clarify that direction No.2 to the effect that reimbursement of medical treatment in private hospitals should be understood to be from empanelled private hospitals and such empanelment may be either by the State or the Central Government (CGHS). From the report of the learned Amicus Curiae, it appears that leaving aside fifteen States and Union Territories which have complied with all the aforesaid five directions of this Court there are twenty-one States and Union Territories, which are in default of this Court’s order(s). Majority, in fact, all the said twenty-one States and Union Territories have failed to provide the facility of cashless transactions. However, the said facility, in the considered view of the Court, can wait for some time and the States and Union Territories in default, may implement the same within the next six months. Insofar as direction No.2 is concerned, the States of Odisha, Mizoram, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand are in default. Direction No.3 has not been implemented by the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the States of Andhra Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Insofar as direction No.4 is concerned, the States of Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Mizoram, Rajasthan and Tripura are in default. The State of Uttar Pradesh has not implemented any one of the five directions. In the aforesaid circumstances, we grant six weeks time to the above noted States which are in default to implement this Court’s order so far as direction Nos.2, 3 and 4 are concerned. The State of Uttar Pradesh has not implemented any one of the five directions. In the aforesaid circumstances, we grant six weeks time to the above noted States which are in default to implement this Court’s order so far as direction Nos.2, 3 and 4 are concerned. The State of U.P. shall also implement direction Nos.1 to 4 within the aforesaid time frame. All the States and Union Territories will comply and implement direction No.5, as already stated, within a period of six months. List the matter on 26th September, 2019. Any State in default of the direction Nos.1 to 4 shall be represented by their Chief Secretaries and Health Secretaries on the date fixed.” 7. It is, thus, evident that so far as medical facilities are concerned, the limit of Rs.3,00,000/- for availing cashless facilities does not appear to be bearing any rationale. The cashless facility should be for the amount of expenditure that is admissible and is incurred for medical treatment. We do not find any justification on behalf of the State Government to have fixed a limit of Rs.3,00,000/-. We would, therefore, direct the State Government to re-consider the same and modify the limit of cashless facility to the extent of the amount admissible for any medical treatment as per the Rules without any upper cap. We say this because the amount which is admissible will only be reimbursed and, therefore, the fixing of a limit of Rs. 3 lacs of cashless facility does not carry any sense, inasmuch as whatever is admissible as per the Rules can also be availed of through a cashless facility. The limit of Rs.3,00,000/-, therefore, does not stand to reason, subject to any decision being taken by the State Government. 8. The aforesaid issue, therefore, may be considered by the State Government and an appropriate decision be taken which may be informed to the High Court and may also be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the pending matter in the case of Justice Dave (supra). 9. The extent of medical facilities being already extended to the Hon’ble Judges, including retired Judges, will continue to be made available, subject to any further directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Justice Dave (supra). The State Government may, therefore, take appropriate steps in the matter. 10. 9. The extent of medical facilities being already extended to the Hon’ble Judges, including retired Judges, will continue to be made available, subject to any further directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Justice Dave (supra). The State Government may, therefore, take appropriate steps in the matter. 10. The 2nd facility which has been extended by the State Government is in respect of domestic helps. The affidavit filed on behalf of the State brings on record The Bihar Domestic Help to Former Chief Justices And Former Judges Of The High Court Rules, 2019 notified on 24th July, 2019. The same is extracted hereinunder: – Government of Bihar General Administration Departments Notification Patna-15, Date 24.7.19 No-7/Ashta.-04-02/2017GAD 9870. – In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India (as amended from time to time) the Governor of Bihar is pleased to make the following rules in consultation with the High Court of Judicature Patna, Bihar to regulate the Domestic Help to Former Chief Justices and Former Judges of High Court, namely: – 1. Short title, extent, commencement and application. – (1) These Rules may be called the ‘Bihar Domestic Help to Former Chief Justices and Former Judges of the High Court Rules, 2019’. (2) It shall extend to whole of the State of Bihar. (3) These Rules shall come into force with immediate effect. (4) The Rules shall apply to a person who has held office either as a Chief Justice or as a Judge of the Patna High Court. 2. Definitions. – In these Rules, unless otherwise requires in the subject or context – (i) “High Court” means the High Court of Bihar; (ii) “Former Chief Justice” means a person who has held office of the Chief Justice of the High Court; (iii) “Former Judge” means a person who has held office of a Judge of the High Court; (iv) “Spouse means the surviving wife or, husband as the case may be, of a Former Chief Justice or Former Judge upon his or her death while in office or after retirement; (v) “Domestic Help” means the assistance of a helper to be provided to a Former Chief Justice or a Former Judge of High Court, or to his or her spouse at the expense of the High Court. 3. Eligibility. 3. Eligibility. – A Former Chief Justice or a Former Judge of the High Court shall be entitled to avail of the services of a Domestic Help, if- (a) The facility of a Domestic Help is not being provided to the Former Chief Justice or Former Judge as the case may be, by any other High Court; and (b) No facility of a Domestic Help is attached to the office or post to which the Former Chief Justice or the Former Judge is appointed after retirement. 4. Selection of Domestic Help. – The Former Chief Justice or Former Judge as the case may be, may at her or his discretion select a person to be engaged as Domestic Help. 5. Contractual appointment. – The engagement of a Domestic Help under Rule 4 shall be on a contractual basis and will be available until the Former Chief Justice or Former Judge is entitled to the benefit of the facility under Rule 3 and until the Domestic Help performs duties satisfactorily subject to the certification of the Former Chief Justice or Former Judge. 6. Reimbursement. – Upon engagement, the monthly remuneration payable to the Domestic Help shall be reimbursed by the High Court to the Former Chief Justice or Former Judge, as the case may be, at the end of every month. 7. Wages. – The wages to be reimbursed by the High Court to the Former Chief Justice or Former Judge for the engagement of a Domestic Help shall be equivalent to the salary payable to a Class-IV employee of the High Court in the grade of a person or equivalent at the minimum of the scale of pay inclusive of dearness allowance. 8. Payment of Wages. – The Former Chief Justice or Former Judge as the case may be, may engage the services of one or more Domestic Help but the High Court shall pay only wages equivalent to what is payable for one Domestic Help at the rate prescribed in Rule 7. 9. Continuance of Domestic Help. – The Domestic Help engaged by a Former Chief Justice or the Former Judge shall continue to remain on a contractual basis so long as he or she renders satisfactory service, as certified by the Former Chief Justice or the Former Judge, as the case may be. 10. Temporary special appointment of a permanent employee to another places. – The Domestic Help engaged by a Former Chief Justice or the Former Judge shall continue to remain on a contractual basis so long as he or she renders satisfactory service, as certified by the Former Chief Justice or the Former Judge, as the case may be. 10. Temporary special appointment of a permanent employee to another places. – Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, if a peon or equivalent holder of a Class-IV post, who is borne on the establishment of the High Court, furnishes to the Registrar General of the High Court, a request in writing to serve a Former Chief Justice or Former Judge and the services of such an employee are acceptable to the Former Chief Justice or Former Judge as the case may be, his Temporary special appointment may made as Domestic Help until the Domestic Help attains the age of superannuation and/or so long as the Former Chief Justice or the Former Judge is entitled to this facility, whichever is earlier. 11. Spouses. – The facility, which is extended under the aforesaid provisions to a Former Chief Justice or Former Judge of the High Court, shall be provided on the same terms and conditions to the surviving spouse of a Former Chief Justice or Former Judge, as the case may be, during the lifetime of the spouse. 12. Interpretation. – In the event of any question or dispute arising in regard to the interpretation of these Rules, the Chief Justice of the High Court shall be competent to take a decision in that regard which shall be final and binding in all respects. By order of the Governor of Bihar Sd/- (Ghufran Ahmad) Deputy Secretary to the Govt. Memo no.-7/Ashta.-04-02/2017GAD 9870/Patna-15, dated 24-7-19 Copies in duplicate along with its C.D. forwarded to Superintendent, Govt. Press, Gulzarbagh, Patna and E-Gazette Cell, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna for Publication in Forth coming issue of extra ordinary Gazette. 2. Kindly send 200 (Two Hundred) Copies of this notification to General Administration Department. Sd/- Deputy Secretary to the Govt. Memo no.-7/Ashta.-04-02/2017GAD 9870/Patna-15, dated 24-7-19 Copy forwarded to the Advocate General, Bihar, High Court, Patna/Accountant General (A&E), Bihar, Patna/Registrar General, High Court, Patna/Principal Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat with reference to Cabinet item no. 01 dated 23.07.2019/Secretary, Law Department, Bihar/All District & Session Judges/All Department/All Head of Departments and I.T. Manager, G.A.D. for information and necessary action. Memo no.-7/Ashta.-04-02/2017GAD 9870/Patna-15, dated 24-7-19 Copy forwarded to the Advocate General, Bihar, High Court, Patna/Accountant General (A&E), Bihar, Patna/Registrar General, High Court, Patna/Principal Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat with reference to Cabinet item no. 01 dated 23.07.2019/Secretary, Law Department, Bihar/All District & Session Judges/All Department/All Head of Departments and I.T. Manager, G.A.D. for information and necessary action. Sd/- Deputy Secretary to the Govt. 11. The said Rules, therefore, covers the facility of domestic help in entirety with the option of a contractual appointment of a domestic help and the wages to be reimbursed in the grade of a peon or equivalent at the minimum of the scale of pay inclusive of dearness allowance or, in the alternative, the temporary special appointment of a permanent employee of the High Court who makes a request in writing to serve a former Chief Justice or a former Judge. The Rules also provide for extension of this facility to the surviving spouse of the former Chief Justice or a former Judge during the life-time of the spouse. 12. We find that the Rules are exhaustive and, therefore, the Registrar General is directed to circulate the notice of the said Rules that have been promulgated to all Judges entitled for the said benefit under the said Rules and streamline the engagement of domestic help in accordance with the said Rules. Any further clarifications/directions in this regard as per the said Rules may be obtained from Hon’ble the Chief Justice. 13. Another issue which is in respect of the internal arrangement being maintained by the High Court namely the telephone call facilities, which have been made available by the State Government shall continue to be extended accordingly. All pending bills and claims in this regard shall be finalized within one month and any impediment in the same shall be brought to the notice of the Chief Justice by the Registrar General immediately. 14. One of the most needed facilities for retired Judges are the conveyance facilities to be made available to sitting and retired Judges. In this regard, we have already mentioned the orders that were issued in the past, including the current facilities available that are described as The Patna High Court Pool Car Rules, 2011. We have extracted the same in our order dated 28th March, 2019. In this regard, we have already mentioned the orders that were issued in the past, including the current facilities available that are described as The Patna High Court Pool Car Rules, 2011. We have extracted the same in our order dated 28th March, 2019. The said pool car facilities are strictly not rules framed and approved by the State Government but are an internal arrangement made in the High Court that came to be framed for facilitating conveyance to retired Judges. The said facilities shall continue subject to any further orders passed by the Chief Justice from time to time in this regard. 15. Some other facilities were also under consideration that came to be deliberated by a Committee constituted by the Chief Justice in the meeting held on 26th January, 2019. All such facilities that may require a financial sanction shall be open to consideration with negotiations and consultation with the State Government from time to time. 16. The affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court brings on record the facilities being provided to the retired Judges of other High Courts. We have examined the same and we find that in order to ensure the effective availability of protocol facilities to retired Judges, an appropriate arrangement be made by the High Court by constituting a permanent cell for making available the facilities and extending help to retired Judges under the guidance and directions of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. A copy of the judgement, therefore, may be placed by the Registrar General before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for passing appropriate orders in this regard. 17. The petition stands accordingly disposed off.