THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA versus S.C. MALTE & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 13 S.C.R. 230 · Decided: 13-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(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 
H 
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 
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 
HELD: 
F 
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.