JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. Vide order impugned dated 05.12.2018 passed in WP (C) No.337 of 2018 titled "Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya v. State of Meghalaya" learned Single Judge after noticing that amended Rule 3 as notified vide Notification No.LJ(A) 11/1999/154 dated 27.11.2018 is confined to "retired Judges" has directed the respondents to revise it so as to include spouse and children, of the retired Chief Justice/Judges same has been done. 2. Learned Single Judge has also directed the respondents to issue a notification in respect of reimbursement of phone bills of retired Chief Justice/Judges of High Court which as per Full Court Resolution was resolved to be fixed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) per month for mobile, landline and internet bill etc. 3. It may be advantageous to state that in the judgment, dated 31.03.2014 rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of "P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & ors" in Civil Appeal Nos.4248-4249 of 2014, regarding post-retiral benefits of the retired Judges of the High Courts has referred to the resolution passed in the Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of High Courts held on 18.09.2004 as referred is reproduced hereunder:- "18. Augmenting of post-retiral benefits of Judges (iv) 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." 4. In para-34 of the judgment is as under:- "34. 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." 5. (a) The Government of Meghalaya vide Notification No.LJ(A)No.31/2013/4 dated 06.05.2013 notified the Rules called "Medical Facilities for the "Retired Judges of the High Court of Meghalaya and their Families" Rules, 2013" entitling the retired Chief Justice and retired Judge and the spouse to medical facilities as are applicable to the sitting Judges of the High Court of Meghalaya. (a) The Government of Meghalaya vide Notification No.LJ(A)No.31/2013/4 dated 06.05.2013 notified the Rules called "Medical Facilities for the "Retired Judges of the High Court of Meghalaya and their Families" Rules, 2013" entitling the retired Chief Justice and retired Judge and the spouse to medical facilities as are applicable to the sitting Judges of the High Court of Meghalaya. Subsequently, sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 was amended in consultation with the High Court of Meghalaya notified vide Notification No.LJ(A)31/2013/58 dated 26.11.2015, the words "spouse" stand substituted by the words "family members". In sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 and sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 figure "(ii)" was substituted by figure "(2)", therefore, medical facilities to the retired Chief Justice and retired Judges and their families have been provided at par with the sitting Judges. (b) Vide No.Health.99/2018/10 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Government of Meghalaya, Health and Family Welfare Department, financial powers, have been delegated to the Registrar General of High Court of Meghalaya up to Rs.10 lakhs, for clearance of medical bills of retired Chief Justice, Judges and their families. (c) Office Memorandum No.Health.116/2018/193 dated 15.10.2018 has been issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Meghalaya, providing amongst other that a retired Chief Justice, Judge and their family members shall be entitled to take medical reimbursement for treatment in any State where the retired Chief Justice/Judge is residing and to take medical treatment in any Hospital/Nursing Home in the country on the basis of a referral by any medical practitioner or doctor in the place of stay of a retired Judge or the place where the need for medical treatment arises. (d) One more notification has been issued by the Law Department bearing No.LJ(A)11/99/154 dated 27.11.2018 in terms whereof Rule 3(2) of the principal Rule, new sub-rule (2) has been inserted which reads as under:- "A retired Judge" shall be entitled to take medical reimbursement for treatment in any State and where the retired Chief Justice/Judge is residing and to take medical treatment in any Hospital/Nursing Home in the country on the basis of a referral by any medical practitioner or doctor in the place of stay of a retired Judge or the place where the need for medical treatment arises." (e) Mention of the words "retired Judge" in absence of family members gave rise to ambiguity for removal of ambiguity a Corrigendum has been issued bearing No.LJ(A)11/99/155 dated 01.02.2019 providing that in the said notification No.LJ(A)11/99/154 dated 27.11.2018, in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Medical Facilities for the Retired Judges of the High Court of Meghalaya and their Families Rules, 2013 after the words "retired Judge" which is occurring therein, the words "spouse and dependent children" shall be inserted. In effect same has to be construed consistent with the principal Rule i.e. retired Chief Justice/Judges and their families (spouse and dependent children). 6. It is to be noted that no direction has been issued because (a) the matter pertaining to medical facilities of retired Chief Justice and Judges of High Court (including their spouses and dependent children) on uniform basis is being monitored by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in contempt petition (C) No.425-426 of 2015 in Writ Petition (C) No.523 of 2002. (b) Any order issued or to be issued by the State Government has to be consistent with the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as have been and may be issued from time to time. 7. The other important issue pertains to Rule 10A of the Meghalaya State Guest Rules, 1991. (b) Any order issued or to be issued by the State Government has to be consistent with the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as have been and may be issued from time to time. 7. The other important issue pertains to Rule 10A of the Meghalaya State Guest Rules, 1991. Vide Notification No.GAB.112/89/418 dated 10.03.2016, the Government of Meghalaya notified amendment to the Meghalaya State Guest Rules called "The Meghalaya State Guest (Amendment) Rules, 2016" after Rule 10A of the Rules, new Rule 10 has been inserted which reads as under:- "(10A) A retired Chief Justice and retired Judge of High Court of Meghalaya shall be treated as State Guest for the purpose of security, accommodation and conveyance and protocol only whenever such retired Chief Justice and retired Judge visit Meghalaya, Kolkata and Delhi where the State Government has its establishment and such State Guest facilities shall be for a period not exceeding seven days." 8. Without any justified cause and without consultation with the High Court, vide Notification No.GAB.112.89/478 dated 04.10.2018, the said Rule 10A has been further amended linking the visit as occur therein the rule with "official duties" connected with the Government of Meghalaya. The State authorities were impressed upon to restore the facility as extended to the retired Chief Justice/Judge in terms of Rule 10A notified on 10.03.2016 vide No.GAB112./89/418 dated 10.03.2016. For some time when it did not happen, the matter has been taken on the judicial side. 9. Respondents with the approval of the competent authority have issued Office Order No.GAB.7/2016/39 dated 04.02.2019, wherein the words "official duties" have been clarified to include "visits connected with medical treatment and works of an emergent nature". This notification was taken note of but while considering this appeal on 07.02.2019, learned Advocate General was in the open Court made aware about the effect of the Notification dated 04.02.2019 i.e. it negates the very object of Rule 10A as it was in the year 2016, he made a submission that the matter will be revisited and will apprise the Court. 10. 10. Now, one more Notification copy of which is produced by learned Additional Advocate General dated 14.02.2019 bearing No.GAB.7/2016/43 in supersession of Office Order No.GAB.7/2016/39 dated 04.02.2019 with the approval of the competent authority in terms whereof it has been made clear as under:- "On official duties, such duties shall also include visits connected with medical treatment and works of an emergent nature or otherwise private visits." 11. The order impugned is not required to be interfered with because vide Office Order No. GAB.7/2016/43 dated 14.02.2019, as referred to above the position of Rule 10A as it is existed in 2016 in effect stands restored, therefore stated position as above, shall not be now open to question or alteration. 12. Vide Full Court resolution enhancement of Secretarial Assistance and Domestic Help and payment of phone bills of retired Judges was referred to the Government but same is stated by learned Additional Advocate General to have been sent for reconsideration of Full Court. Registrar General to put up that matter on administrative side for further necessary action. 13. Copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General. 14. In the aforesaid background, the appeal shall stand disposed of as above. As a necessary corollary thereto, writ petition WP (C) No.337 of 2018 shall also stand disposed of accordingly.