1. Reimbursement of medical expenses for retired High Court Judges — determination of the responsible State Government for payment. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1557
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA AND UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Justice V.S. Dave President, the Association of Retd. Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts – Appellant
Versus
Kusumjit Sidhu And Others – Respondent
Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 425-426 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No. 523 of 2002
Decided on : 15-04-2025
The Court clarified that medical reimbursements for retired judges shall be borne by the State Government where the High Court was situated at the time of the judge's first appointment or the State Government where the High Court was situated from which the judge retired.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1981 - Non-compliance with court orders - Court directed compliance affidavits to be reviewed for reimbursements to retired judges by concerned State Governments, clarifying jurisdiction for reimbursements based on original appointment or retirement State. (Paras 2-4)
(B) Compliance Requirements - Court emphasized the need for States to adhere to compliance orders and outlined consequences of non-compliance. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Appeals were filed regarding reimbursement payments owed to retired judges for medical treatment and compliance with prior court orders.
Findings of Court:
The court highlighted the jurisdictions of State Governments responsible for reimbursements concerning judges transferred to different High Courts.
Issues: The primary issues were establishing the correct jurisdiction for reimbursement under the orders and ensuring compliance by the State Governments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that compliance must be ensured by the relevant State Government as per the original appointment and clarified that if non-compliance is found, actions under the Contempt of Courts Act will be initiated.
Result: States permitted to file fresh affidavits to confirm compliance.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Ambiguity regarding the responsible State Government for reimbursements in cases where Judges were transferred between different High Courts. (Para 4 )
3. Clarification required for reimbursement responsibility when retired Judges were transferred between different High Courts during their tenure. (Para 4 )
4. Reimbursements for retired Judges shall be made by the State Government where the High Court seat was situated at first appointment or retirement. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Next hearing scheduled — Amicus directed to report compliance — reimbursement responsibility clarified — fresh affidavits permitted. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 )
6. Which State Government is responsible for the medical reimbursements of a retired High Court Judge?
The responsible entity is the State Government where the seat of the High Court is situated from which the Judge retired, regardless of whether the treatment was obtained in a hospital outside that State. (Para 3 )
7. How is the responsible State Government determined if a Judge was transferred between different High Courts?
In cases of transfer, the responsible State Government is either the one where the seat of the High Court was situated when the Judge was first appointed or the one where the seat was situated upon retirement. (Para 4 )
8. What legal action can be taken for non-compliance with court directions regarding these reimbursements?
If non-compliance with the court's directions is found, action may be initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1981. (Para 2 )
ORDER :
1. List on 29th April, 2025 at 2.00 p.m.
2. We request the learned senior counsel appointed as Amicus to go through the compliance affidavits filed by the States reporting compliance with the directions issued under earlier orders as well as the order dated 18th May, 2025. We request the learned Amicus to submit a chart to this Court indicating the extent of compliances made by various States. 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.
3. Our attention is invited to paragraph 9 of our order dated 18th February, 2025 which reads thus:
"9. We also make it clear that all the reimbursements, as directed under the orders of the Court, shall be made by the concerned State Governments. When we say the concerned State Governments, it will be the State Government where the seat of the High Court is situated from which the learned Judge has retired. Obviously, the concerned State Government shall reimburse even if the treatment is taken in a hospital outside that State."
4. It is pointed out that there are cases of Judges who are appointed in one particular High Court but have retired as judges of some other High Court as they were transferred. Therefore, direction contained in paragraph 9 is clarified as under:
"When we say the concerned State Government, it will be the State Government where the seat of the High Court is situated in which the retired Judge was firstly appointed or the State Government where the seat of the High Court is situated from which the learned Judge has retired."
5. We permit the States to file fresh affidavits within a period of one week from today. The States will forward copies of the affidavit to the learned Amicus Curiae.
