New Delhi, Apr 24 (UNI) The Supreme Court has issued a stern warning to State Governments, cautioning them that failure to comply with its orders regarding post-retirement medical benefits for retired High Court Judges, their spouses and dependants could invite proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1981.
“We are putting the State to the notice that if we find non-compliance, action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1981 will be initiated,” the Court warned in its order dated April 15, 2025.
A bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, reiterated its earlier directives and sought fresh affidavits from the States.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 29.
The Court reaffirmed that retired Judges are entitled to medical facilities at par with sitting Judges, including:
Reimbursement for treatment in private hospitals without prior State approval,
Authorization for such reimbursement to be sanctioned by the Registrar General of the High Court,
Reimbursement for treatment taken in another State,
A cashless medical treatment facility.
In addressing confusion over which State Government is responsible for providing these benefits especially in cases involving Judges transferred between High Courts, the bench clarified Paragraph 9 of its previous February 18, 2025 order.
The responsibility lies either with:
The State Government of the Judge’s first appointment, or
The State Government where the Judge last served and retired, depending on the situation.
The Court previously criticized Madhya Pradesh for its non-compliance, particularly its delay in implementing the cashless facility.
While the State sought six months, the Court granted only one month, directing immediate amendments to the Government Order dated July 24, 2019, which had unreasonably limited reimbursement to emergency treatments.
The Court further clarified that medical reimbursements can include non-empanelled hospitals, especially in emergencies or where empanelled facilities are unavailable near the Judge’s residence.
Referring to its January 4, 2024 judgment in All India Judges Association versus Union of India, the Court held that such treatments shall be eligible for post-facto approval by the Registrar General of the High Court concerned.
Importantly, the bench emphasized that States already offering better facilities must not dilute or withdraw them.
Additionally, the Court cited its May 1, 2017 order, which mandated continuation of benefits such as domestic help and telephone bill reimbursements for the spouse of the deceased Judge.
To assess the ground reality, the Court directed Registrar Generals of all High Courts to report whether retired Judges are experiencing difficulties in accessing the mandated benefits.
The unresolved cases are to be escalated to the respective Law Secretaries of the States, the court directed.
UNI SNG