https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283434 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. en-us Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Jul 2021 16:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283434 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283434