THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRAversusS.C. MALTE & ORS.

                       (20'12] 13 S.C.R. 230


A     THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY
       WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA
                                 v.
                        S.C. MALTE & ORS.
              (Civil Appea! Nos. 9020-9021 of 2012}
                      DECEMBER 13, 2012
        [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

       Judiciary - Medical facilities for retired High Court
C Judges and their dependent family members - Statutory
   power of the State Government - Jurisdiction of the High
   Court to direct the Stat4~ Government to frame particular rule
   regarding medical facilities for the retired High Court Judges
   - Difference of opinion - Matter referred to larger Bench -
ID High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act,
   1954 - s.230 - Maharashtra Retired High Court Judges
   (Facilities for Medical Treatment) Rules, 2006 - r.2(a) -
   Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 32, 136 and 226.

       Some retired Judges of the Bombay High Court
EE moved a representation to the Chief Justice of the
   Bombay High Court mentioning the difficulties faced by
   them in getting medical facilities under the Central
   Government Health Scheme (CGHS) and difficulties in
p respect of reimbursement of the expenses on medicines.
   This letter was treated as a suo motu Writ Petition and
   an order was passed by the High Court directing the
   Government of Maharashtra to frame rules for medical
   treatment and reimbursement of retired Judges of the
   Bombay High Court.
G
         Pursuant to the directions of the Court and in
    exercise of the powers conferred under Section 230(2)
    of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of

H                               230
  SECR., MIN. OF H. & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF           231
           MAHARASHTRA v. S.C. MALTE

Service) Act, 1954, the State Government of Maharashtra         A
drafted the Maharashtra Retired High Court Judges
(Facilities for Medical Treatment) Rules, 2006, and placed
the same before the High Court. The amicus curiae
appearing for the suo motu writ petitioners (retired
Judges), however, suggested a change in the Draft Rules         B
of 2006 that the retired Judges be entitled to the medical
facilities and reimbursement provided in the Draft Rules
whenever the CGHS Scheme is not "availed of' instead
of not "available". The High Court disposed of the writ
petition with direction to the State Government to either       c
notify the Draft Rules in the form suggested by the
amicus curiae or,amend the G.R. for medical benefits to
sitting Judges and extend the same benefits also to the
retired Judges in exercise of its power under sub-section
(2) of Section 24 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and
                                                                0
Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.
     The Government of Maharashtra (the appellant) then
filed Civil Application for review of the order, but the High
Court rejected the prayer for review and directed the State
Government to comply with the order of the High Court           E
within two months. Aggrieved, the appellant filed this
appeal.

    Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court
                                                                F
    HELD:

Per Swatanter Kumar, J.

     1.1. It cannot be disputed and, in fact, has been
noticed in the judgment under appeal before this Court          G
that different States have different rules to provide
medical facilities to the former judges of their respective
High Courts. Article 221 of the Constitution read with the
provisions of the Act is indicative of the fact that the
framers of the Constitution envisaged parity of such
                                                                H
   232     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012) 13 S.C.R.


A facilities in the States. Variation in grant of medical
  benefits from one High Court to another and one State
  1to another, besides adding inequality also enhances the
  possibility of a service cc1ndition being applied to a former
  Judge of a High Court adversely. This variation in service
B conditions to the disadvantage of the Judge concerned,
  is not permissible in law. [Para 12) [244-E-G; 245-8)

       1.2. The conditions o,f service of judiciary, have to be
  reasonable and free of arbitrariness. The element of
C arbitrariness or mercy must be eliminated so as to give
  judiciary its deserved independence and freedom to work
  effectively in the public interest and for attainment of the
  eonstitutional goals. Any unreasonable restriction would
  amount to interference with the doctrine of impartiality
  and fairness applicable to the judiciary in all events. [Para
D 27) [253-0, F-G]

       1.3. There is no reason for the State of Maharashtra
  to have withdrawn its consent for substitution of the
  words 'availed or in place of 'available'. It had ample time
E at its disposal, as various matters came up before the
  Court on a number of hearings, particularly prior to such
  s,ubstitution. It is expected of the State to act
  inaccordance with the accepted canons of governance
  and not to render the judicial proceedings Ineffective and
F inconclusive. [Para 28) [253-H; 254-A-B]

       1.4. Lack of instructions from the Finance
  Department was pleaded to be the sole ground for·
  seeking review of the judgment of the High Court.
  However, inter departmental dealing is a matter of internal
G management of the Government. The Government Is
  represented as a unit before the Courts. How they
  manage their internal affairs is for them to decide. The
  High Court rightly held that it was not an error apparent
  on the face of the record, justifying the review or
H satisfying the ingredients of Order XLVll Rule 1 of the
  SECR., MIN. OF H. & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF         233
           MAHARASHTRA v. S.C. MALTE

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Substitution of the word       A
'available' by 'availed of does not bring any prejudice in
law. On the contrary, it would be in conformity with the
constitutional requirements of equal treatment of all
Judges. [Para 29] [255-A-C]
                                                              B
     1.5. Availability of uniform medical facilities for the
former Judges in the entire country can also be
substantially justified on another ground that there exists
transfer policy of High Court Judges. This policy has
been in force since 1994 and, therefore, this requires that C
the entitlement of former Judges and their dependent
family members should not vary from place to place.
Uniformity would remove another apprehension in the
minds of the Judges as to the Court from which they
retire. Presently, there are different benefits in different
States and, thus, the medical benefits at the Centre as D
well as between the States are comparatively and
considerably different. This disparity leads to a patent
discrimination which should not be permitted. It will be
in the interest of all concerned, including the State
Governments, that complete uniformity is maintained in E
relation to availability of medical facilities in terms of
Section 230 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and
Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and procedure of
reimbursement of medical bills of the former Judges of
the High Courts. The Former Judges of the High Courts F
should be placed at parity with the sitting Judges of the
High Courts. Thus, it will be appropriate for the competent
authority to frame/amend the rules in accordance with
this judgment and the constitutional mandate. [Para 30]
[256-A-E]                                                    G
     1.6. In order to ensure the absolute independence of
judiciary, in the interest of administration of justice and
for the Judges to act free of any apprehensive attitude
and to provide complete certainty to the service              H
    234     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (2012) 13 S.C.R.


A conditions of the former Judges of the High Courts, it is
  directed that Rule 2(a) of the draft rules shall remain in
  the form as directed by the High Court. The word
  'available' shall stand substituted by the words 'availed
  or. The State of Maharashtra is hereby directed to notify
B these rules forthwith. Henceforth, there shall be complete
  uniformity in the 'grant of medical benefits' to the former
  Judges of various High Courts. It may not only be
  desirable but necessary for the Centre and the State
  Governments to amend and alter the existing rules. If no
c rules are in force, to frame the rules on such uniform
  lines. In relation to the medical facilities, the former
  Judges of the High Courts would be placed at parity with
  the facilities available to the sitting Judges and their
  dependent family members. Providing such benefit and
D bringing uniformity in the rules shall be in the interest of
  the State administration as well as administration of
  justice. All the medic:al bills of the former Judges of
  various High Courts shall be submitted to the Registrar
  General of the concerned High Court, who shall, subject
  to approval of the Chief Justice of that Court and in
E accordance with the rules in force, pay such bills (upon
  due scrutiny) to the former Judges. The Union
  Governmant and the State Governments are directed to
  provide such 'head of expenditure', being part of the High
  Court budget of the respective High Courts for
F reimbursement of medical bills of the former Judges. In
  other words, the payment would be directly made by the
  High Court to the form1er Judges and it, in turn, would be
  reimbursed by the State Government. All the former
  Judges of the High Courts would be entitled to receive
G medical facilities from the hospitals so empanelled by the
  Central or the State Governments, as the case may be.
  Till appropriate rules are framed by the appropriate
  authority, these directions shall remain in force and shall
  be abided by the executive. [Para 32] [256-H; 257-A-H;
H 258-A-C]
  SECR., MIN. OF H. & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF          235
           MAHARASHTRA v. S.C. MALTE
     S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) Supp. SCC 87;        A
Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President Madras Bar
Association (2010) 11 SCC 12010 (6) SCR 857; Brij Mohan
Lal v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 502; Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record Association v, Union of India (1993) 4
SCC 441: 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 659 and State of Bihar v.        B
Bal Mukund Sah (2000) 4 SCC 640: 2000 (2) SCR 299 -
referred to.
                    Case Law Reference:
    (1981) Supp. SCC 87      referred to          Para 18     C
    2010 (6) SCR 857         referred to          Para 23
    (2012) 6 sec 502         referred to          Para 24
    1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 659 referred to          Para 25
                                                              D
    2000 (2) SCR 299         referred to          Para 26
Per A.K. Patnaik, J. (dissenting)

     1. Section 230 of the High Court Judges (Salaries
and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 is titled "Medical E
facilities for retired Judges". It is clear from language of
sub-section (1) of Section 230 of the Act that every retired
Judge is 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 Services, F
Class-I and his family, are entitled under any rules and
orders of the Central Government for the time being in
force. However, under sub-section (2) of Section 230 of
the Act, power is vested in the Government of the State
to extend facilities for medical treatment to a retired G
Judge of the High Court for that State and his family
different from the facilities provided to a retired officer of
the Central Civil Services, Class-I and his family. This
statutory power is that of the State Government and
cannot be exercised by the High Court under Article 226 H
    236      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012) 13 S.C.R.


A ;of the Constitution. The appellant, therefore, was right in
  iurging a ground in these appeals that the High Court had
  no jurisdiction to direct the State Government to frame
  any particular rule regarding medical facilities of the
  retired Judges of the Bombay High Court. [Paras 4, 5]
B [260-A-E-F-H; 261-A-B]

       2. Neither the High Court in exercise of its power
  under Article 226 of the Constitution nor this Court under
  Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution can direct the
  State Government to grant particular medical facilities to
C ~ retired High Court Judge when sub-section (2) of
  Section 230 of the Act 1fests such power on the State
  Government to grant medical facilities other than those
  mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 230 of the Act.
  [Para 6] [261-F-H]
D
       3. It was brought to the notice of this Court that some
  of the State Governments in exercise of their powers
  under sub-section (2) of Section 230 of the Act are
  providing the same medical facilities and medical
E reimbursement to retired Judges and their families as are
  being provided to sitting Judges of the High Court and
  ~heir families. In the light of the provisions regarding
  medical facilities in other States, the Government of
  Maharashtra must consiider extending better medical
F facilities to the retired Judges of the Bombay High Court,
  but what exactly should be the provisions for medical
  facilities can only be decided by the State Government
  in exercise of its powers under sub-section (2) of Section
  230 of the Act. [Para 8] [263-C-O; 264-A-B]
G        Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union
    af India AIR 1990 SC 334: 1989 (3) SCR 488 and Ku/dip
    Singh v. Union of India JT 2002 (2) SC 506 - referred to.
                       Case Law Reference:
H         1989 (3) SCR 488      referred to          Para 6
  SECR., MIN. OF H. & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF                237
           MAHARASHTRA v. S.C. MALTE

     JT 2002 (2) SC 506         referred to            Para 7        A
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
9020-9021 of 2012.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 15.01.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature of Bombay in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.          B
6285 of 2005 and dated 22.04.2008 in Civil Application No.
73 of 2008 in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 6285 of 2005.

     Sanjay V. Kharde, Asha Gopalan Nair for the Appellant.

    Gaurab Banerji, ASG, R.K. Rathore, Ashok K. Srivastava,
                                                                     c
Sadhana Sandhu, Arjun Krishan, Sushma Suri, D.S. Mahra,
Shridhar Y. Chitale, Saurabh Kapoor, Abhijat P. Medh for the
Respondents.

     The Judgments & Order of the Court was delivered by             D

     SWATANTER KUMAR J. 1. Leave granted.

      2. Some of the former Judges of the Bombay High Court,
 particularly those who are settled at Aurangabad, moved a
 representation to the Chief Justice of that High Court explaining   E
the difficulties faced by them in getting medical facilities and
difficulties in respect of reimbursement of the expenses on
medicines. These former Judges also included Judges who
were appointed to the Bombay High Court but were
subsequently transferred under the transfer policy to other High     F
Courts. After the~r tenure, their efforts to resolve these issues
obviously did not result in bringing about any fruitful result. In
this representation, they also referred to various judgments
under which the full reimbursement was provided under different
rules as well as disparities that were prevalent in this respect,    G
in different States of the country. This representation came to
be treated as a suo motu Writ Petition on the appellate side of
the Bombay High Court. In this writ petition, on 13th October,
2005, after hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, the
Court noticed that some hospitals had been empanelled by the         H
    238       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012) 13 S.C.R.


A Government as approved hospitals under its Scheme. It was
  noticed in the same order that the provisions under the Central
  Government Health Scheme ('CGHS', for short) are inadequate
  and under the scheme only a few hospitals in selected cities
  are recognized for reimbursement of medical treatment. It was
a also mentioned in the letter sent to the Chief Justice of the
  Bombay High Court that government hospitals in Aurangabad
  did not have the facilities of proper diagnosis and treatment for
  certain serious ailments and CGHS had not been extended to
  Aurangabad where all the :said former Judges had settled after
c their retirement.
       3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
  Union of India is that whme CGHS has not been extend~d.
  there the former Judges can take the treatment from the
  government hospitals and if any treatment is not available in
D the government hospitals, then they would be at liberty to go to
  any hospital to which they are referred to by the doctors of the
  government hospitals. Having noticed these difficulties and the
  practical problems which had really become a matter of great
  concern for the High Courts and the former Judges of the High
E Courts, the Court passed the following interim order:
          "Meanwhile, the Hon'ble Retired Judges would be
          permitted to get medical treatment from any of the hospital
          mentioned in paragraph 4 on being referred by a Doctor
F         of Government Hospital and obviously their bills shall be
          reimbursed expeditiously."
       4. The Court passed another order dated 23rd June, 2006
  laying down the procedure that should be adopted for dealing
  with the medical bills of the former Judges and directed as
G under:
          "Neither the State Government nor the Central Government
          have challenged that order so far. This being the position,
          now the modalities of actual working will have to be set
H         down. In view of this State of affairs, we propose to pass
 SECR., MIN. OF H. & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF   239
MAHARASHTRA v. S.C. MALTE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

     an order whereby as in the case of the retired Supreme              A
     Court Judges as permitted by the Central Government by
     its office Memorandum dated 06.02.2002, medical bills of
     the retired High Court judges at Aurangabad will be signed
     by the Registrar (Administration) and countersigned by the
     medical officer and then passed by Registrar General. The           B
     Officers shall certify the bills whether for indoor treatment
     or for the purchase of medicines. The bills will be cleared
     by the State Government to begin with and thereafter the
     Central Government will reimburse the amount paid by the
     State Government. We would like the Central Government              c
     Counsel and the State Government Counsel to react on
     this, if at all there are any difficulties in the working of this
     procedure."

     5. The case remained pending before the Court and during
the hearing of the petition on 7th July, 2006, it was stated on          D
behalf of the State Government that the Government was in the
process of framing Rules in compliance with the directions
contained in the orders of the Court dated 13th October, 2005
and 23rd June, 2006.
                                                                         E
      6. Vide its order dated 17th July, 2006, the High Court
directed the State Government to frame Rules within three
months and continued the operation of the interim order dated
13th October, 2005. Pursuant to the directions of the Court and
in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 230(2) of              F
The High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service)
Act, 1954 (for short, the 'Act'), the State of Maharashtra framed
the Rules titled the Maharashtra Retired High Court Judges
(Facilities for Medical Treatment) Rules, 2006 (for short, the
'draft Rules'). These draft Rules were submitted before the High         G
Court. Thereafter, when the writ petition was taken up for
hearing, the Amicus Curiae for the petitioners (retired Judges)
suggested a change to be made in Rule 2(a) of the draft Rules.
Rule 2(a) reads as under :

    "2. Medical facilities for retired High Court Judges                 H
    240       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 13 S.C.R.


A         and family members dependent on them-

           (a) Any person who was appointed and served as a High
                 Court Judge for High Court of Judicature at
                 Bombay and settled in the State of Maharashtra
                 and his family members dependent upon him shall
e                be entitled whenever the Central Government
                 Health Scheme (CGHS) is not available, to receive
                 the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in
                 any hospital recognized by the State Government
                 to render whole time medical services as such
c                person shall be entitled."

       7. Amendment suggested to the above Rule was that the
  words 'shall be entitled whenever the Central Government
  Health Scheme (CGHS) is not available' be substituted by the
D words 'shall be entitled whenever the Central Government
  Health Scheme (CGHS) is not availed of. Initially the suggestion
  was opposed on behalf of the State. The Principal Secretary
  and RLA, Law and Judicial Department was present in Court,
  however, the Secretary, Finance Department was not. The
E matter was then deliberated before the Court. Thereafter, the
  suggestion made was acceded to and it was said that they
  would take concurrence of the Finance Department on the
  suggested change. The Court, thus, directed the change in the
  draft Rules, as suggested. The High Court vide its judgment
F dated 15th January, 2007 recorded that the CGHS was
  available only in three cities of the State of Maharashtra, i.e.,
  Bombay, Nagpur and Pune. The Court, while noticing the
  agreed amendment to Rule 2(a), recorded its conclusion and
  relief as under :

G         "The learned Amicus Curiae has gone through the Rules.
          It is submitted that these Rules will substantially cover the
          grievances as raised by the petitioners. Since the power
          conferred on the State Government is pursuant to Section
          230(2) it will be open to the State Government to either
H         notify°the said Rules in the forum which they have now been
  SECR., MIN. OF H. & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF 241
MAHARASHTRA v. S.C. MALTE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

     presented or it is open to the State Government to amend        A
     the G.R. which provides for medical benefits to sitting
     judges and extend the same benefit also to the retired
     judge, who are covered by the draft rules as submitted and
     which is substantially the same. It is made clear that these
     Rules will apply to the Judges who were appointed as            B
     Judges of this Hon'ble Court and have since retired and
     are settled in the State of Maharashtra and Goa."

      8. While making the Rule absolute, the High Court directed
the State to notify the Rules or to amend the Government             C
resolution in light thereof. After the pronouncement of the above
judgment and lapse of a considerable period of time, on 8th
October, 2007 the State Government filed an application stating
that the counsel and the officer giving consent for change, by
substitution of the words 'availed of in place of 'available', did
not realise the repercussions of the amendment and had not           D
obtained the concurrence of the Finance Department.
Therefore, it was contended that the application should be
allowed, the change directed by the Court in the draft Rules be
deleted and the Rules in the original form be permitted to be
notified. This application was dismissed by a detailed order of      E
the High Court dated 22nd July, 2008. The High Court
repeatedly noticed that the CGHS was not available and
keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,
recorded that there was no occasion for exercising the review
jurisdiction, as the order did not suffer from any apparent error.   F
The matter was adjourned on different dates for the State
Government to give response to the contentions raised by the
Amicus Curiae. It was also noticed in this order that some State
Governments, including those of U.P. and Andhra Pradesh, had
extended the facilities of medical treatment to the retired          G
Judges of their respective High Courts. The review application
was thus dismissed as being without any merit. Thereupon, the
State was directed to comply with the orders of the High Court
within two months.
                                                                     H
    242      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 13 S.C.R.


A        9. Aggrieved from the orders dated 15th January, 2007
    and 22nd April, 2008, the State of Maharashtra has preferred
    the present appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
    The matter was finally heard at the 'After Notice' stage.

        10. Before I delve into the issues arising in the present
8
  appeal, it will be appropriate for the court to examine what kind
  of a right 'medical facilities to the judges and/or the former
  Judges of the High Court' is. The Judges of the High Courts of
  the respective States are appointed under Article 217 of the
C Constitution of India (for sho11 "the Constitution"). Such Judges
  are appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and
  seal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the
  Governor of the State and they hold office till the age of 62 years
  sub1ect to the provisions contained in Article 217 of the
  Constitution. In terms of Article 221 of the Constitution, the
D Judges of each High Court shall be paid such salaries as may
  be determined by the Parliament by law and every Judge shall
  be entitled to such allowanCE~s and to such rights in respect of
  leave of absence and pension as the case may be and as
  determined from time to time under the law by the Parliament.
E Proviso to Article 221 of the Constitution categorically states
  that neither the allowances of a Judge nor his rights in respect
  of leave of absence shallbe varied to his disadvantage after
  hi1s appointment.

F      11. Article 229(3) concerns itself with administrative
  expenses, including salaries, allowances and pensions payable
  to or in respect of the officers and servants of the court, which
  shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State and
  any fees or other monies taken by the court shall form part of
G that fund. These are some constitutional provisions which
  indicate the constitutional protections in the Page 23 form of
  legal rights that are available to the judges of the High Court.
  The Indian Parliament enacted The High Court Judges (Salaries
  and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. This Act provided the
H conditions of service of sitting judges and even that of acting
  SECR., MIN. OF H. & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF  243
MAHARASHTRA v. S.C. MALTE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

judges who had been appointed in terms of clause (2) of Article A
224 of the Constitution. It dealt with the leave and/or allied
subjects thereto such as salaries, pension, family pension,
provident fund and other miscellaneous items. The
miscellaneous items included travelling allowance, rent free
house and medical facilities. It made a specific provision with . B
regard to medical facilities available to the former judges of the
 High Court. Section 230 dealt with this aspect, while Section
23A dealt with the facilities for medical treatment of the sitting
judges. These provisions read as under:-

     "23A. (1 ). Every Judge and the members of his family shall     C
     be entitled to such facilities for medical treatment and for
     accommodation in hospitals as may from time to time, be
     prescribed.

     (2) The conditions of service of a Judge for which no           0
     express provision has been made in this Act shall be such
     as may be determined by rules made under this Act.

     (3) This section shall be deemed to have come into force
     on the 26th January, 1950, and any rule made under this         E
     section may be made so as to be retrospective to any date
     not earlier than the commencement of this section.

           xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
    230(1 )Every retired Judge shall, with effect from the date      F
    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 Services,   G
    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 subsection (1) but subject
                                                                     H
    244      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 13 S.C.R.


A         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."
B         12. Section 230 of the Act deals with the medical benefits
    to which the former Judges of the High Court and their family
    members would be entitled to. This provision states that they
    would be entitled to similar medical benefits as may be
    prescribed through appropriate rules by the State and to the
C   retired Class I Civil Services officers. Sub-section (2) of Section
    230, in fact, is an exception to Section 230(1) of the Act. The
    non-obstante clause of sub-section (2) makes it clear that the
    legislature intended to provide the medical benefits to the
    former Judges in terms of the law framed by the State but with
D   restrictions as may be imposed by the Central Government. It
    provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section
    (1), but subject to conditions and restrictions as the Central
    Government may impose, a retired judge of the High Court for
    the State may avail for himself and his family, any facility for
E   medical treatment which the Government of that State may
    extend to him. It cannot be disputed and, in fact, has been
    noticed in the judgment under appeal before this Court that
    different States have different rules to provide medical facilities
    to the former judges of their respective High Courts. Article 221
F   of the Constitution read with the provisions of the Act is
    indicative of the fact that the framers of the Constitution
    envisaged parity of such facilities in the States. Variation in
    grant of medical benefits from one High Court to another and
    one State to another, besides adding inequality also enhances
G   the possibility of a service condition being applied to a former
    Judge of a High Court adversely. For instance, a Judge of Court
    'A', upon his retirement, would be entitled to the medical benefits
    provided by the State to the former Judges of High Court 'A'.
    But, if such a Judge is transferred to High Court 'B', he would
H   be entitled to the medical benefits as allowed by the State to
 SECR., MIN. OF H. & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF   245
MAHARASHTRA v. S.C. MALTE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
the former Judges of High Court 'B'. There may be disparity         A
between the medical benefits of High Court 'A' and 'B', like the
High Court 'A' may be extending the same benefits as that of
a sitting Judge while the High Court 'B' may be giving the said
benefit to a limited extent of the CGHS or any other scheme
formulated by the concerned State. This would result in variation   B
in service conditions to the disadvantage of the Judge
concerned, which is not permissible in law.

     13. This variation is to the extent that some States/Courts
provide for complete reimbursement while others do not. In          C
some States there are rules permitting partial reimbursement,
while in some others even the rules have not been framed to
provide for adequate medical facilities. The non-availability of
CGHS is another major concern and wherever the CGHS is
available, availability of its benefits and impediments in its
smooth application are obvious from the very ineffective            D
implementation of the Scheme. The CGHS, firstly, is not even
available in all the major cities, much less in and around the
rural areas and secondly, the procedure specified under the
scheme is quite complex and impracticable. The Scheme
contemplates prior permission for referral hospitals. In normal     E
course of sickness, it requires the Head of the concerned
specialty in the hospital to grant such permission, subject to
furnishing of the requisite documents, which itself may frustrate
the purpose of reference to an outside hospital. In emergencies,
one has to comply with the entire procedure of ex-post facto        F
approval, which appears to be in order.

     14. The eligibility criteria and the method in which the
CGHS can be availed of on paper appear to be sound, but
when it comes to practice, things are quite unsatisfactory.         G
Receiving a medicine, availability of drugs, the rush in the
hospitals, payment of bills under the CGHS are some of the
practical problems that are faced by everyone, of which the
Court can even take a judicial notice. Attempts under the
Scheme have been made by introducing different aspects like         H
    246      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 13 S.C.R.


A medical audit of hospital bills, holding of claim adalats,
    establishment of local advisory committees, decentralization .
    and delegation of powers etc., but they ultimately do not serve
    the purpose of effective and readily available medical facilities
    to the concerned persons.
B
        15. The Court cannot ignore the harsh reality that the rates
  stipulated under the CGHS and its approved hospitals are
  much lower than the prevalent rates for providing such
  treatments in other hospitals. Thus, the State employees and
  even the former Judges. of the Courts have to provide for the
C difference in rates from their own pockets, if they take treatment
  from other private hospitals. Of course, an attempt has been
  made by the Central Government while introducing a specific
  clause, being clause 15 in the conditions of tender, relating to
  validity of CGHS rates which requires that for the stipulated
D period, the empanelled institutions shall not charge more than
  CGHS rates. But the stated difficulty will still prevail where
  CGHS is not in force and/or there are no empanelled hospitals.
  In such a situation, the basic right sought to be protected under
  the rules would stand violated.

        16. The Court is certainly not oblivious to the problems
  faced by the Central Government in this behalf, but that by itself
  cannot be reason enough to overlook the practical problems
  faced by the people and particularly, the former Judges of the
F High Courts. One aspect that deserves attention is that in the
  year 1994, the policy in relation to transfer of Judges at the High
  Court level was introduced and has been, thereafter, applied
  quite frequently. A Judge may be appointed to one Court,
  transferred to another and still another, from where he retires.
G It results in dual problems to the former Judge; firstly, in relation
  to availability of medical facilities and secondly, with regard to
  reimbursement of the medical bills. The nature of the right to
  medical facility is 'statutory'. It, being a condition of service,
  cannot be altered or changed to the disadvantage of the former
H Judges. Such is the requirement of law.
 SECR., MIN. OF H. & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF   247
MAHARASHTRA v. S.C. MALTE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
     17. In normal discharge of his duties, a Judge has to decide       A
a case in favour and against the Government as well. While
performing his duties in accordance with law, the courts do
pass some orders of severe or serious consequences, against
the State Government or an officer in its hierarchy. The Courts
also deal with penal proceedings under the Contempt of Courts           B
Act at the level of the higher judiciary. In this process, the courts
are likely to pass orders which may not be to the liking of the
executive hierarchy of the State. In such circumstances, the
possibility of bias against the Judges in the minds of the
Executive cannot be entirely ruled out. This may have the impact        c
of, if nothing else, lowering the degree of impartiality and
independence of judiciary.

Relevance of Independence of Judiciary
      18. Another important facet of this statutory right is            D
relatable to the independence of judiciary. I may refer to some
judgments of this Court, which have dealt with the
independence of judiciary with reference to the Constitution of
India. Referring to the functions of the judiciary, this Court in the
case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [(1981) Supp. SCC 87],             E
held:

     " ... what the true function of the judiciary should be in a
     country like India which is marching along the road to
     social justice with the banner of democracy and the rule
     of law, for the principle of independence of the judiciary is      F
     not an abstract conception but it is a living faith which must
     derive its inspiration from the constitutional charter and its
     nourishment and sustenance from the constitutional values.
     It is necessary for every Judge to remember constantly and
     continually that our Constitution is not a non-aligned             G
     national charter."

The Court further held:

     "the principle of independence of judiciary is the basic           H
    248       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 13 S.C.R.


A         feature of the Constitution. It cannot remain content to act
          merely as an umpire but it must be functionally involved in
          the goal of socioeconomic justice. In this judgment, the
          court also referred to the observations recorded by Justice
          V. Krishna Iyer in the case of Union of India v.
B         Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth (1977) 4 SCC 193:
          "Independence of the Judiciary is not genuflexion; nor is it
          opposition to ever propo:sition of Government. It is neither
          Judiciary made to Oppoi;ition measure nor Government's
          pleasure."
c         19. Besides referring to these remarks, the court with great
    emphasis noticed the views expressed by Dr. Rajendra Prasad
    that the Constitution undoubtedly made clear provisions for an
    independent judiciary and observed:

D         "We have provided in the Constitution for a judiciary which
          will be independent. It is difficult to suggest anything more
          to make the Supremie Court and the High Courts
           independent of the influence of the executive. There is an
          attempt made in the Constitution to make even the lower
E         judiciary independent of any outside or extraneous
          influence. One of our articles makes it easy for the State
          Governments to introduce separation of executive from
          judicial functions and placing the magistracy which deals
          with criminal cases on similar footing as civil courts. I can
F         only express the hope that this long overdue reform will
          soon be introduced in the States."

         20. In Sankalchand Himatla/ Sheth (supra), the Court also
   referred to the view of Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru who said that it
  was important that the High Court Judges should not only be
G first- rate but should be of the highest integrity, people, who can
  stand up against the executive Government and whoever come
  illl their way. According to Dr. Ambedkar, independence of
  jwdiciary was of the greatest importance and that there could
  be no difference of opinion that the judiciary had to be
H imdependent of the executive.
  SECR., MIN. OF H. & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF  249
MAHARASHTRA v. S.C. MALTE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
      21. In this very judgment, the Court, while referring to the . A
form of oath prescribed in clause VIII, Third Schedule of the
Constitution, for a Judge or a Chief Justice of the High Court
also noticed that it requires him to affirm that he will perform
the duties of his office "without fear or favour, affection or ill will".
The words ''without fear or favour" have some significance. B
Relevancy of such expressions is traceable to various
constitutional provisions. In terms of Article 202(3)(d), the
expenditure in respect of the salaries and allowances of High
Court Judges is charged on the Consolidated Fund of each
State and Article 112(3)(d)(iii) enunciates that pensions              c
payable to the High Court Judges are charged on the
Consolidated Fund of India. By virtue of Article 113(1) the
pensions are not subject to the vote of the Parliament. The court
also noticed: "Now the independence of the judiciary is a
fighting faith of our Constitution. Fearless justice is a cardinal 0
creed of our founding document. It is indeed a part of our
ancient tradition which has produced great Judges in the past.
In England too, from where we have inherited our present
system of administration of justice in its broad and essential
features, judicial independence is prized as a basic value and E
so natural and inevitable it has come to be regarded and so
ingrained it has become in the life and thought of the people
that it is now almost taken for grantedand it would be regarded
an act of insanity for anyone to think otherwise."

     22. Besides this, the court also noticed that the framers         F
of the Constitution were aware of this constitutional development
in England and were conscious of our great tradition of judicial
independence and impartiality and they realized that the need
for securing the independence of judiciary was even greater
under our Constitution than it was in England.                         G
     23. At this stage, reference to the judgment of this court in
the case of Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President Madras Bar
Association [(2010) 11 SCC 1], with reference to
independence of judiciary would be proper and, in fact,
                                                                       H
    250       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 13 S.C.R.


A   inevitable. A five-Judge Bench of this Court not only observed
    but formatively stated:

          " ... impartiality,   independence,       fairness    and
          reasonableness in decision making are the hallmarks of
          judiciary. If "Impartiality" is the soul of the judiciary,
B
          "Independence" is the lifeblood of the judiciary. Without
          independence. impartiality cannot thrive. Independence is
          not the freedom for Judges to do what they like. It is the
          independence of judicial thought. It is the freedom from
          interference and pressures which· provides the judicial
c         atmosphere where he can work with absolute commitment
          to the cause of justice and constitutional values."

                                                 (emphasis supplied)

D        24. In a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Brij
    Mohan Lal v. Union of India [(2012) 6 SCC 502], the Court
    held as under:

          "The independenc:e of the Indian judiciary is one of the
          most significant features of the Constitution. Any policy or
E         decision of the Government which would undermine or
          destroy the indepEmdence of the judiciary would not only
          be opposed to public policy but would also impinge upon
          the basic structure of the Constitution. It has to be clearly
          understood that the State policies should neither defeat nor
F         cause impediment in discharge of judicial functions. To
          preserve the doctrine of separation of powers, it is
          necessary that the provisions falling in the domain of
          judicial field are discharged by the judiciary and that too,
          effectively."
G
      25. Thus, various Benches of different strength (Seven
  Judge Bench, Five Judge Bench and Two Judge Bench) of this
  Court have consistently held that independence of judiciary is
  a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be
H permitted to be adversely impacted by policy-making or even
 SECR., MIN. OF H. & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF   251
MAHARASHTRA v. S.C. MALTE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
by legislative power. The constitutional ethos of independent           A
judiciary cannot be permitted to be diluted by acts of implied
intervention or undue interference by the executive in the
impartial administration of justice, directly or indirectly. This
Court in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record
Association v. Union of India [(1993) 4SCC 441], in                     B
unambiguous terms stated: "Independence of judiciary has
always been recognised as a part of the basic structure of the
Constitution.• It is a known fact that a large part of the litigation
in courts is generated from people being aggrieved against the
governance, action and inaction of the Government including             c
the executive and/or its instrumentalities. Thus, the courts must
be kept free from any influence that the executive may be able
to exercise by its actions, purely executive or even by its power
of subordinate legislation. Where this court refers to
independence, fairness and reasonableness in decisionmaking
                                                                        0
as the hallmarks of judiciary, there it also states impartiality as
one of its essentials. Though. what is most important is the
independence of judiciary. its freedom from interference and
pressure from other organs of the State. The Courts and
Judges. thus. must be provided complete freedom to act. not             E
to do what they like but to do what they are expected to do.
legally and constitutionally and what the public at large expects
of administration of justice. If the State is able to exercise
pressure on the Judges of the High Court by providing arbitrary
or unreasonable conditions of service or altering them in an
arbitrary manner, it·would certainly be an act of impinging upon        F
the independence of judiciary. Of course, what is put forward
as part of the basic structure must be justified by reference to
the provisions of the Constitution. When one looks into the
scheme of our Constitution and the doctrine of separation of
powers, there are many Articles, some of which I have already           G
referred to, which clearly show that independence of the
judiciary was of utmost concern with the framers of the
Constitution. Such intent of the framers is not only ingrained into
the ethos of our Constitution but is also explicitly provided for,
even in the Directive Principles of the Constitution. Reference         H
    252       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 13 S.C.R.


A in this regard can usefully be made to Article 50 of the
   Constitution, which requires the State to separate the judiciary
  from the executive in public services of the State. This Article,
  with the passage of time, has turned into a constitutional
  mandate rather than a mere constitutional directive.
B
        26. For the judiciary to be impartial and independent and
  to serve the constitutional goals, the Judges must act fairly,
  reasonably, free of fear and favour. The term 'fear' as explained
  in various dictionaries, means 'an unpleasant emotion caused
C by threat of danger, pain or harm; a feeling of anxiety regarding
  the likelihood of something unwelcome happening'. (Concise
  O>d'ord English Dictionary, Eleventh Edition Revised) On the
  other hand, 'favour' means 'approval or liking; unfair preferential
  treatment, inclination, prejudice, predilection (Concise Oxford
  English Dictionary, Eleventh Edition Revised and Black's Law
D Dictionary, Eighth Edition). The necessity of acting free of fear
  or favour is to maintain impartiality and independence of the
  judicial decision-making process. A five-Judge Bench of this
  CQurt, very affirmatively and to put the matters beyond ambiguity,
  in the case of State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah [(2000) 4 SCC
E 640], held as under:

          "... We may also usefully refer to the latest decision of the
          Constitution Bench of this Court in Registrar (Admn.), High
          Court of Orissa v. Sisir Kanta Satapathy wherein K.
F         Venkataswami, J., speaking for the Constitution Bench,
          made the following pertinent observations in the very first
          two paras regarding Articles 233 to 235 of the Constitution
          of India:

                 "An independent Judiciary is one of the basic
G                features of the Constitution of the Republic. Indian
                 Constitution has zealously guarded independence
                 of Judiciary. Independence of Judiciary is doubtless
                 a basic structure of the Constitution but the said
                 concept of independence has to be confined within
H
 SECR., MIN. OF H. & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF   253
MAHARASHTRA v. S.C. MALTE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
             the four corners of the Constitution and cannot go            A
             beyond the Constitution."

            xxx xxx xxx
     [T]he mere fact that Article 309 gives power to the
     Executive and the Legislature to prescribe the service                B
     conditions of the Judiciary, does not mean that the
     Judiciary should have no say in the matter. It would be
     against the spirit of the Constitution to deny any role to the
     Judiciary in that behalf, for theoretically it would not be
     impossible for the Executive or the Legislature to turn and           C
     twist the tail of the Judiciary by using the said power. Such
     a consequence would be against one of the seminal
     mandates of the Constitution, namely, to maintain the
     independence of the Judiciary."
                                                                           D
      27. When I discuss the conditions of service of judiciary,
they have to be reasonable and free of arbitrariness.
Arbitrariness in the power of the State to make unfair conditions
of service for the sitting or the former Judges of the High Court
would tantamount to putting a kind of pressure on the judiciary,           E
requiring them to run to the Government for every small sickness
or for reimbursement of expenditure incurred on some major
ailment. The powers vested in the State, as aforenoticed, are
not to cause fear or favour or any pressure in the mind of the
judiciary, lest the sitting Judges, after retirement, be dependant
                                                                           F
upon the kindness of the executive. This element of arbitrariness
or mercy must be eliminated so as to give judiciary its deserved
independence and freedom to work effectively in the public
interest and for attainment of the constitutional goals. Any
unreasonable restriction would amount to interference with the
doctrine of impartiality and fairness applicable to the judiciary          G
in all events.

     28. Having discussed, in some elaboration, the
constitutional colour of this statutory right, I must refer to the facts
of the present case. I do not see any reason for the State of              H
    254      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 13 S.C.R.

A Maharashtra to have withdrawn its consent for substitution of
  the words 'availed of in plac1a of 'available'. It had ample time
  at its disposal, as various matters came up before the Court
  on a number of hearings, particularly prior to such substitution.
  It is expected of the State to act in accordance with the
B accepted canons of governance and not to render the judicial
  proceedings ineffective and inconclusive. The stand of the
  Government ought to have been in favour of a condition which
  would bring judicial independence, impartiality and
  fearlessness to the fore rather than its restriction, which
c apparently was of unreasonable nature. Is it the fault of the
  citizens or that of the Government servants that the CGHS
  Scheme is not available in a large number of cities in India and
  wherever it is available, it is proving ineffective, as people fail
  to receive their reimbursement claims for months together,
  despite instructions issued by the concerned Ministry? It will be
0
  unfortunate if a sitting Judge has to be continuously under the
  fear as to what his medical facilities will be after retirement. His
  service conditions should be definite and favourable to building
  the public confidence in the administration of justice rather than
E btinging unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the State action.
  The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has issued a circular
  dated 14th November, 2011 attempting to streamline various
  aspects of implementation of the CGHS Scheme which itself
  shows that the scheme suffers from various infirmities and
  shortcomings and is not proving to be effective. The impact of
F the circular would have to be seen over a period, to realize its
  benefits, if any. Even in the circular issued by the same Ministry
  dated 27th April, 2011, which opens with the words "keeping
  il1 view the difficulties being faced by the pensioner CGHS
  beneficiaries residing in non-CGHS covered areas" certain
G clarifications were issued. The basic problem that arises is with
  regard to the emergency cases, specialized treatments and
  most concernedly the reimbursement of the bills and the
  process of verification of such matters. The procedure is so·
  complex and results in such inordinate delays that it becomes
H
  SECR., MIN. OF H. & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF  255
MAHARASHTRA v. S.C. MALTE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
difficult for the beneficiaries to continue their treatment faithfully   A
and as advised.

      29. Lack of instructions from the Finance Department was
pleaded to be the sole ground for seeking review of the
judgment of the High Court. Inter departmental dealing is a
                                                                         8
matter of internal management of the Government. The
Government is represented as a unit before the Courts. How
they manage their internal affairs is for them to decide. The
High Court rightly held that it was not an error apparent on the
face of the record, justifying the review or satisfying the              C
ingredients of Order XLVll Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. Substitution of the word 'available' by 'availed
of does not bring any prejudice in law. On the contrary, it would
be in conformity with the constitutional requirements of equal
treatment of all Judges. It is ultimately a matter relating to
medical treatment, which nobody claims out of choice but it              D
always emerges from necessity. Would it not be fair and
reasonable on behalf of the State to take a stand which is in
consonance with judicial independence and impartiality rather
than subjecting a Judge to the pressure of worrying about the
availability of medical facilities during the retirement era? It will    E
be in line with the constitutional mandate of separation of
powers and independence of judiciary that the medical facilities
are permitted to be availed by the Judges/former Judges on
the concept of 'availed of instead of where there are 'available'
with reference to the CGHS. Furthermore, the bills of the                F
Judges should be submitted with the Registrar General of the
concerned High Court and should be dealt with and paid in
accordance with the rules of the High Court. The State
Governments should provide a due head of exp~nditure for this
purpose in the budget of their respective High Courts This will          G
help in expeditious payments and also ensure that the Judges
would not have to run after the members of the executive for
clearance of their dues and the availability of medical facilities
for them and their dependent family members would not depend
upon the whims of the concerned authority.                               H
    256       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 13 S.C.R.

A         30. Availability of uniform medical facilities for the former
  Judges in the entire country can also be substantially justified
  on another ground that there exists transfer policy of High Court
  Judges. This policy has been in force since 1994 and, therefore,
  this requires that the entitlement of former Judges and their
s dependent family members should not vary from place to place.
   Uniformity would remove another apprehension in the minds of
  the Judges as to the Court from which they retire. Presently, it
  is clear even from the various documents submitted and placed
  on record by the learned Additional Solicitor General that there
C are different benefits in different States and, thus, the medical
  benefits at the Centre as well as between the States are
  comparatively and considerably different. This disparity leads
  to a patent discrimination which should not be permitted. It will
  be in the interest of all concerned, including the State
  Governments, that complete uniformity is maintained in relation
0
  to availability of medical facilities in terms of Section 230 of
  the Act and procedure 01' reimbursement of medical bills of the
  former Judges of the High Courts. The Former Judges of the
  High Courts should be placed at parity with the sitting Judges
E of the High Courts. Thus, it will be appropriate for the competent
  authority to frame/amend the rules in accordance with this
  judgment and the constitutional mandate.

          31. Keeping in view the doctrine of separation of powers
  and independence of judiciary, which are the structural ethos
p of our Constitution, it is e!xpected that the legislative power and
  more particularly, the subordinate legislative power, ought not
  to be exercised so as to obtrude these basic fundamental
  principles. The exercise of subordinate legislative power, which
  by necessary implication, entrenches upon the independence
G of judiciary, would have to be decided on the touchstone of it
  being violative or otherwise, of the basic structure of the
  Constitution.

         32. In order to ensure the absolute independence of
    judiciary, in the interest of administration of justice and for the
H
  SECR., MIN. OF H. & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF 257
MAHARASHTRA v. S.C. MALTE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
Judges to act free of any apprehensive attitude and to provide       A
complete certainty to the service conditions of the former
Judges of the High Courts, I dispose of the above appeals and
pass the following order-cum-directions:

     a)    I do not find any merit in the present appeals.           B
     b)    Rule 2(a) of the draft rules shall remain in the form
           as directed by the High Court. The word 'available'
           shall stand substituted by the words 'availed of. The
           State of Maharashtra is hereby directed to notify
           these rules forthwith.                                    c
     c)    Henceforth, there shall be complete uniformity in the
           'grant of medical benefits' to the former Judges of
           various High Courts.
                                                                     D
     d)    It may not only be desirable but necessary for the
           Centre and the State Governments to amend and
           alter the existing rules. If no rules are in force, to
           frame the rules on such uniform lines.
     e)    In relation to the medical facilities, the former         E
           Judges of the High Courts would be placed at parity
           with the facilities available to the sitting Judges and
           their dependent family members. Providing such
           benefit and bringing uniformity in the rules shall be
           in the interest of the State administration as well as    F
           administration of justice.

     f)    All the medical bills of the former Judges of various
           High Courts shall be submitted to the Registrar
           General of the concerned High Court, who shall,
           subject to approval of the Chief Justice of that Court    G
           and in accordance with the rules in force, pay such
           bills (upon due scrutiny) to the former Judges.
     g)    The Union Government and the State Governments
           are directed to provide such 'head of expenditure',       H
    258         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 13 S.C.R.


A                being part of the High Court budget of the
                 respective High Courts for reimbursement of
                 medical bills of the former Judges. In other words,
                 the payment would be directly made by the High
                 Court to the former Judges and it, in turn, would be
B                reimbursed by the State Government.

           h)    All the former Judges of the High Courts would be
                 entitled to receive medical facilities from the
                 hospitals so empanelled by the Central or the State
                 Governments, as the case may be.
c
           i)    Till appropriate rules are framed by the appropriate
                 authority, these directions shall remain in force and
                 shall be abided by the executive

0      33. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
    However, there shall be no orders as to costs.

          A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted.

       2. I have read the judgment of my learned brother Justice
E Swatanter Kumar but with due respect to his learning I am
  unable to persuade myself to agree with his conclusion that the
  appeals have no merit and with the directions in his judgment.
  In my view, the appeals should be allowed and the impugned
  orders of the High Court should be set aside for reasons which
F I shall indicate after setting out the facts.

        3. The facts very briefly are that Section 230 of the High
  Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954
  (for short "the Act") provides for medical facilities for retired
  Judges. Sub-section (1) of Section 230 provides that every
G retired Judge shall 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 Services,
  Class-I and his family, are entitled under any rules and orders
  of the Central Government for the time being in force. A retired
H
SECR., MIN. OF H. & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF 259
 MAHARASHTRA v. S.C. MALTE [AK. PATNAIK, J.]
officer of the Central Civil Services, Class-I and his family are A
entitled to medical facilities under the Central Government
Health Scheme (for short "the CHGS Scheme"). Justice S.C.
Malte and four other retired Judges who after retirement were
residing in Aurangabad, Maharashtra, addressed a letter to the
Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court mentioning therein the B
difficulties of the retired Judges in getting the medical facilities
under the CGHS Scheme including the fact that the facilities
thereunder were provided at only three cities in Maharashtra,
namely, Mumbai, Nagpur and Pune. This letter was treated as
suo motu Writ Petition No.6285 of 2005 and an order was c
passed by the High Court on 17.07.2006 directing the
Government of Maharashtra to frame rules for medical treatment
and reimbursement of retired Judges of the Bombay High
Court. The Government of Maharashtra drafted the Maharashtra
 Retired High Court Judges (Facilities for Medical Treatment) D
 Rules, 2006, pursuant to the order dated 17.07.2006 of the
 Bombay High Court and placed the Draft Rules of 2006 before
the High Court. The amicus curiae appearing for the suo motu
writ petitioners, however, suggested a change in the Draft Rules
of 2006 and the change was that the retired Judges shall be
entitled to the medical facilities and reimbursement provided E
in the Draft Rules whenever the CGHS Scheme is not availed
of and the High Court disposed of the writ petition by order
dated 15.01.2007 with the direction to the State Government
to either notify the Draft Rules in the form suggested by the
amicus curiae or amend the G.R. for medical benefits to sitting F
Judges and extend the same benefits also to the retired Judges
in exercise of its power under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of
the Act. The Government of Maharashtra (the appellant herein)
then filed Civil Application No. 73 of 2008 for review of the order
dated 15.01.2007, but by order dated 22.04.2008 the High G
Court rejected the prayer for review and directed the State
Government to comply with the order dated 15.01.2007 of the
High Court within two months. Aggrieved, the appellant filed this
appeal against the order dated 15.01.2007 passed in suo motu
                                                                  H
    260       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012) 13 S.C.R.


A writ petition No.6285 of 2005 and the order dated 22.04.2008
  rejecting Civil Application No.73 of 2008.

         4. Section 230 of the Act which is titled "Medical facilities
    fof retired Judges" is extracted hereinbelow:
B         "230(1) Every retired Jud!ge, shall, with effect from the date
          on which the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service)
          Amendment Act, 197E>, receives the assent of the
          President be entitled for himself and his family, to the
          same facilities as respects medical treatment and on the
c         same conditions as a n~tired officer of the Central Civil
          Services, Class-I and his family, are entitled under any
          rules and orders of the Central Government for the time
          being in force.

0         (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."
E
        5. It will be clear from language of sub-section (1) of
  Section 230 of the Act quoted above that every retired Judge
  is entitled for himself and hi:s family, to the same facilities as
  respects medical treatment and on the same conditions as a
F retired officer of the Central Civil Services, Class-I and his
  f~mily, are entitled under any rules and orders of the Central
  Government for the time being in force. Sub-section (2) of
  Section 230 of the Act, howe1ver, provides that notwithstanding
  anything in sub-section (1) but subject to such conditions and
G restrictions as the Central Government may impose a retired
  Jµdge 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. Thus, under sub-
  section (2) of Section 230 of the Act, the power is vested in
H the Government of the State to extend facilities for medical
 SECR., MIN. OF H. & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF 261
  MAHARASHTRA v. S.C. MALTE [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
treatment to a retired Judge of the High Court for that State and        A
his family different from the facilities provided to a retired officer
of the Central Civil Services, Class-I and his family. This
statutory power is that of the State Government and cannot be
exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The appellant, therefore, was right in urging a            8
ground in these appeals that the High Court had no jurisdiction
to direct the State Government to frame any particular rule
regarding medical facilities of the retired Judges of the Bombay
High Court.

      6. Though, there are several decisions of this Court on the        C
point that the legislative power or the rule making power cannot
be exercised by the Court either under Article 226 or under
Article 32 of the Constitution, I may only cite the decision of this
Court in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v.
Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 334). In this case, writ petitions           D
were filed by the Supreme Court Employees Welfare
Association and others seeking higher pay scales and the
Attorney General for India appearing for the Union of India
contended inter alia that this Court cannot issue a mandate to
the President of India to grant approval to the rules framed by          E
the Chief Justice of India relating to salaries, allowances, le.ave
and pensions of the officers and servants of the Supreme Court
and this Court held that there can be no doubt that an authority
exercising legislative function cannot be directed to do a
particular act and the Presid!'lnt of India cannot therefore be          F
directed by the Court to grant approval to the proposals made
by the Registrar General of the Supreme Court, presumably on
the direction of the Chief Justice of India. Hence, neither the
High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the
Constitution nor this Court under Article 32 or Article 136 of the       G
Constitution can direct the State Government to grant particular
medical facilities to a retired High Court Judge when sub-
section (2) of Section 230 of the Act vests such power on the
State Government to grant medical facilities other than those
mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 230 of the Act.                  H
    262     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012) 13 S.C.R.


A        7. In Ku/dip Singh v. Union of India [JT 2002 (2) SC 506),
  the medical facilities for retire1d Judges of the Supreme Court
  were in issue. Section 23C of the Supreme Court Judges
  (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, 1958, provides for
  medical facilities for retired Judges. This Section 23C provides
8 that every retired Judge shall be entitled, for himself and his
  family, to the same Central Civil Services Class-I and his family,
  are entitled under any rules and orders of the Central
  Government for the time being in force. The Central Government
  had made the Supreme Court Judges Rules, 1959 for sitting
C Judges of the Supreme Court and Rule 5 of these Rules
  provides for facilities for medical treatment and accommodation
  in hospitals and the proviso to Rule 5 stated that the medical
  expenses shall be reimbursed on prescription of government
  doctors/hospitals or (registered medical) practitioners/private
  hospitals by the Registry of the Supreme Court of India. This
D R111le 5, however, did not apply to retired Judges. Justice Kuldip
  Singh, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, filed a writ
  petition praying for a declaration to the effect that the proviso
  to Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Judges Rules, 1959, should
  be made applicable to the retired Judges of this Court and that
E the provisions of Section 23C of the Supreme Court Judges
  (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, 1958, should be
  struck down. While the writ petition was pending before this
  Court, the Central Government issued a memorandum dated
  06.02.2002 which stated that it had been decided in
F consultation with the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company
  Affairs, Department of Justice, to delegate powers of relaxation
  of rules for sanctioning medical reimbursement claims, in
  respect of retired Chief Justices of India and Judges of the
  Supreme Court holding CGHS pensioner's card to the Registrar
G General of the Supreme Cou1t who will exercise this power with
  the prior approval of the Chief Justice of India or his nominee
  ar:id the reimbursement of medical expenses to the retired Chief
  Justices of India and Judges of the Supreme Court holding
  CGHS pensioner's card would also be made by the Supreme
H Court Registry. In view of the aforesaid memorandum dated
SECR., MIN. OF H. & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF 263
 MAHARASHTRA v. S.C. MALTE [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
06.02.2002 issued by the Central Government, Justice Kuldip           A
Singh did not press the prayer in the writ petition and the writ
petition was disposed of in terms of the said office
memorandum. This was thus a case where the Central
Government was of the opinion that the same facilities should
be made available to the retired Judges of the Supreme Court          8
and their families and had accordingly issued an office
memorandum to that effect and this was not a case where this
Court in exercise of judicial powers under Article 32 of the
Constitution directed the Central Government to grant particular
medical facilities to the retired Supreme Court Judges.
                                                                      c
       8. It has been brought to our notice by the learned
Additional Solicitor General Mr. Garuab Banerji that in fact
some of the State Governments in exercise of their powers
under sub-section (2) of Section 230 of the Act are providing
the same medical facilities and medical reimbursement to              D
 retired Judges and their families as are being provided to sitting
Judges of the High Court and their families. In Jammu &
 Kashmir, by virtue of the State Government order dated
 19.02.2006, retired Judges are entitled to the same benefits
as are available to the sitting Judges of Jammu & Kashmir High        E
Court. In Gujarat, the Gujarat MiniEter's (Medical Attendance
and Treatment) Rules 1964 have been extended to retired
Judges of the High Court and the powers of the State
Government under these Rules with respect to reimbursement
have been delegated to the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High          F
Court for sanctioning and reimbursing the expenditure for both
sitting and retired Judges and their family members. In Andhra
Pradesh, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has extended the
medical benefits to the retired Judges of the High Court at par
with sitting Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In           G
Madhya Pradesh, the Chief Justice of the High Court sanctions
the reimbursement of the medical bills of the retired Judges of
the High Court pursuant to the orders passed by the State
Government. In Uttar Pradesh, the medical facilities to the
retired Judges of the Allahabad High Court are the same as            H
   264      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2012] 13 S.C.R.


A those available to the sittin!~ Judges of the High Court. In the
  light of these provisions regarding medical facilities in other
  States, the Government of Maharashtra must consider
  extending better medical facilities to the retired Judges of the
  Bombay High Court, but what exactly should be the provisions
B for medical facilities can only be decided by the State
  Government in exercise of its powers under sub-section (2) of
  Section 230 of the Act.

         9. In my view, therefom, the impugned orders of the High
  Court should be set aside and the appeal should be disposed
C of with the recommendations in this judgment.

                               ORDER
       Since there has been a difference of opinion between us
  in these Civil Appeals, the Registry will place these Civil
D Appeals before My Lord the Chief Justice of India to constitute
  a larger Bench to hear and decide these Civil Appeals.
   B.B.B.                       Matter referred to Larger Bench.