JUDGMENT Pursuant to order dated 23 March 2023, Shri S.M.A. Rizvi, Secretary, Finance, Shri Sarayu Prasad Mishra, Special Secretary, Finance and Principal Secretary Law, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, are present along with the record. 2. The Court was constraint to summon the officers as the matter pertaining to providing domestic help and other facilities to the former Chief Justices and former Judges of this Court was kept pending on one pretext or the other. On repeated request made by the learned Additional Advocate General, that the matter is pending consideration at the highest level, as many as, five adjournments over several months was granted. However, the authorities did not take decision. 3. The Principal Secretary Law, at the outset, points out that the matter was placed before the Finance Department for approval on six occasions, but the approval was not accorded. 4. On query, Secretary Finance, submits that the proposed Rules submitted by the High Court is beyond the 'competence of the Chief Justice' as the matter pertains to the post retiral benefits of the retired Judges. Further, Special Secretary, Finance stated that the Rules proposed by the High Court in the matter was beyond the scope of Article 229 of the Constitution of India. He further stated that the matter be referred to the Central Government, to draw a Rule that would uniformly be made applicable to the retired Judges across the country. 5. On perusal of the record with the assistance of the learned Additional Advocate General, we do not find any such objection which is being pressed before this Court. In other words, the attitude of the officers of the Finance Department is not only contemptuous, but at the same time their stand/submission with regard to the competence of the Hon'ble Chief Justice/ Article 229 is not reflected from the record. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the High Court, at the outset, submits that the approach and attitude of the Finance Department of late has been that of 'big brother', attempting to stall any recommendation/proposal made by the High Court on any matter on one pretext or the other without due deliberation. They do not suggest as to how the matter proposed by the High Court, after due approval of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, could have been carried out, and/or, given effect to. They do not suggest as to how the matter proposed by the High Court, after due approval of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, could have been carried out, and/or, given effect to. The objections that is being raised do not fall within the ambit of the Finance Department. At the best they should have raised their objection/concerns, if any, with the Law Department. The audacity of the officers to raise the issue of competence of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, is not only unbecoming of a civil servant, but at the same time contemptuous. These objections are not available on record, nor, have it been brought to the notice of the Law Department for legal advice. The Government Order granting benefits to the retired Judges is already in place, the proposal of the High Court merely seeks to incorporate the same by amending, and/or, in super cession of the earlier Government Order. Article 229 is unnecessarily being pressed with the sole purpose of creating hindrance when there is none. That apart the Finance Department has no other objection. The record merely reflects that the Finance Department does not concur with the proposal. The reason for not agreeing is absent. 7. On query, Principal Secretary Law submits that the objections that is being raised was never conveyed to the Law Department for clarification, neither, it has been brought on record. In any case, he fairly submits that the objections raised is beyond the scope and ambit of the Finance Department insofar it relates to the legality of the proposal submitted by the High Court. The Department of Finance has a limited role to play and their approval is sought only for the reason that the proposal involves financial implication. He further submits that there is no other objection to the proposal and the same shall be notified by the Law Department in continuation/super cession of the earlier Government Order. 8. In view of the afore noted submissions, specific query was made from the Secretary Finance, as to whether the Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh had given an undertaking before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India and others, Writ Petition (Civil ) No. 521 of 2002, dated 31/03/2014, for providing benefits to the retired Judges. The officer admits that such an undertaking was given and consequently, Government Order dated 3 July 2018, was issued in compliance, but in the same breath states that the Finance Department was not taken into confidence before furnishing the undertaking. 9. The matter before the Supreme Court was with regard to the entitlement of benefits to the Judges on retirement. In paragraph 13 of the order, it is recorded that in the conference of the Chief Ministers and the Chief Justices of the High Court, held on 18 September, 2004, the following resolution was passed: " 18. Augmenting of post-retiral benefits of Judges. Xxx xxxx [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." 10. In paragraph 33, Supreme Court noted that pursuant to the said resolution, most of the States in the country have extended various post retiral benefits to the retired Judges of the respective High Courts. Reference was made to the Government Order dated 16 March 2012, issued by the Law Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. It appears that some of the State Governments, including, State of Uttar Pradesh failed to comply with the directions issued in P. Rama Krishnam Raju (supra), consequently, contempt petitions came to be filed before the Supreme Court being case of Justice V.S. Dave President, The Association of Retired Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts v. Kusumjit Sidhu and others, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 425-426 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 523 & 524 of 2002, decided on 27 October, 2015. 11. In the afore noted proceedings, several States, including, State of Uttar Pradesh, filed affidavits undertaking to frame the scheme. The Government Order issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh was adopted as the yardstick. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed as follows: "The counter affidavits/responses filed on behalf of each of the aforesaid States indicate that a scheme has been framed in accordance with the directions of the Court. While some of the States are paying more than what the State of of Andhra Pradesh (Adpoted as the yardstick by the Court) is paying by way of post retirement allowances some others are affording lesser amount(s). While some of the States are paying more than what the State of of Andhra Pradesh (Adpoted as the yardstick by the Court) is paying by way of post retirement allowances some others are affording lesser amount(s). A little variation from the yardstick can be understood in terms of the flexibility contemplated in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment which enable the States to frame their respective schemes keeping in mind the local conditions. As all the aforesaid States have framed their schemes, we direct that the contempt petitions insofar as these states are concerned are closed. We also direct that the effective date of grant of the aforesaid reliefs will be six months from the date of the order of the Court dated 31.03.2014 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 521 of 2002 [P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India and others.]" 12. Further, direction was issued that where allowances paid was lesser than the State of Andhra Pradesh, an upward revision of such allowances shall be made at the appropriate stage. "We also direct that such of the States where the allowances paid are lesser than the State of Andhra Pradesh, shall consider the necessity of an upward revision of such allowances at the appropriate stage and time." 13. Pursuant to the undertaking, State Government issued Government Order dated 3 July 2018, conferring upon the retired Judges benefits noted therein. The quantum of the benefits were static/fixed, i.e., not subject to change. Thus, exposing the retired Judges to knock the doors of the Court for enhancement to tide over the erosion of the value of the benefits caused due to inflation. 14. After a lapse of time, it appears that several State Governments issued orders amending/superceeding the earlier Government Orders conferring benefits upon retired Judges by enhancing the quantum of the benefits and other facilities for several reasons, including, inflation. 15. In this backdrop, an amendment application came to be filed by the petitioners claiming parity with the benefits granted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the retired Judges pursuant to Government Order dated 19 January 2022. The Government Order notes that after a careful consideration of the proposal of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in cessation of the earlier orders, the aforenoted Government Order came to be issued being progressive and plugging the inflationary rise of cost of the benefits provided. 16. The Government Order notes that after a careful consideration of the proposal of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in cessation of the earlier orders, the aforenoted Government Order came to be issued being progressive and plugging the inflationary rise of cost of the benefits provided. 16. The proposal came to be made by the Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, referring to resolution of the Chief Justices Conference 2016, held in April 2016, at New Delhi. 17. It is in the aforenoted background that the petitioner-Association of retired Judges sought commensurate benefits at par with that of the State of Andhra Pradesh. 18. Accordingly, Registrar General of the High Court forwarded Rules/Guidelines, duly approved by Hon'ble Chief Justice, for providing benefits to former Chief Justices and former Judges of High Court of Allahabad, which, however, was kept pending and as per the stand of the officers, before the Court, Rules proposed by the High Court was beyond the competence and jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and not falling within the ambit of Article 229 of the Constitution of India. 19. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Association submits that the High Court has been too conservative in according benefits to the retired Judges which is not commensurate to that conferred by other State Governments, including, the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is urged that High Court and the State Government be directed to incorporate enhanced rates of benefits at par with that of the State of Andhra Pradesh. 20. The submission at this stage is premature and is left open to the petitioners to raise the issue after the Government Order/notification is issued as per the proposal of the High Court. 21. In the afornoted backdrop, specific query was made from the officers of the Finance Department that under which provision, the earlier Government Order was notified in the year 2018 conferring benefits upon retired Judges, and as to whether the proposed Rules/Guidelines proposed by the High Court can be incorporated by way of amendment/ supercession of the Government Order, i.e., 3 July 2018. 22. Secretary, Finance, fairly states that the Finance Department would have no objection in the event the Government Order to that effect is issued incorporating the proposals submitted by the High Court in the form of Rules. 22. Secretary, Finance, fairly states that the Finance Department would have no objection in the event the Government Order to that effect is issued incorporating the proposals submitted by the High Court in the form of Rules. He further submits that the Finance Department does not have objections with regard to the financial implications in according approval to the proposed Rules/Guidelines. 23. It is informed that the Chief Secretary has convened the meeting of the officers with regard to the matter after personal appearance of the officers. 24. In view thereof, it is relevant to take note that the Finance Department was unnecessarily objecting to the proposal without suggesting that the proposed Rules/Guidelines forwarded by the High Court could be given effect to by issuing a fresh/amended Government Order in purported exercise of powers under Article 162 of the Constitution of India as was done by the Government earlier. 25. Having regard to the categorical stand of the Principal Secretary Law and Secretary Finance Department, the following directions are issued: 1. The Rules/Guidelines as proposed by the High Court shall be notified by amending/incorporating/superceeding the Government Order dated 3 July 2018, forthwith; 2. The Finance Department would accord approval within a week thereafter; 3. The notification of the Government Order and the approval, thereof, shall be placed on record on the date fixed; 4. In the event the order is not complied, Additional Chief Secretary, Finance and the officers present today shall appear on the date fixed. 26. List this case on 19 April 2023.