Judicial parity in medical benefits for retired Judges and limits on court-directed rulemaking remain contested.

The article examines whether a High Court can compel a State Government to frame or notify medical-facility rules for retired High Court Judges, and whether retired Judges are entitled to parity with sitting Judges in such benefits. One view states that Section 23D of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 leaves extension of additional medical facilities to the State Government, so the Court cannot direct a particular rule. The opposing view treats medical benefits as part of service conditions linked to judicial independence, and considers unreasonable variation in such benefits inconsistent with parity. Because of the divergence of opinion, the matter was placed before a larger Bench.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could direct the State Government to frame or notify particular medical-facility rules for retired High Court Judges; whether retired Judges were entitled to medical benefits at parity with sitting Judges and whether uniformity in such benefits could be judicially directed.

Analysis: One view held that Section 23D of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 vests the power to extend additional medical facilities in the State Government under sub-section (2), so the Court cannot compel the executive to frame a particular rule. The other view treated medical facilities as a statutory condition of service linked to judicial independence, held that unreasonable variation in such benefits would undermine parity and impartiality, and concluded that the rules could be directed to conform to a uniform standard with retired Judges placed at parity with sitting Judges.

Conclusion: The Bench did not reach a single final merits determination and directed placement of the matter before a larger Bench because of the difference of opinion.

---