JUDGMENT

Heard Shri L.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Praful Tiwari, Shri Vineet Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel, Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General for the applicants, Shri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the High Court.

2. The recall application dated 19 April 2023, and the exemption application has been filed by the officers of the State directly before the Court with a prayer to recall the order dated 4 April 2023, passed by this Court. The order dated 4 April 2023, is extracted:

"1. Pursuant to order dated 23 March 2023, Shri S.M.A. Rizvi, Secretary, Finance, Shri Sarayu Prasad Mishra, Special Secretary, Finance and Principal Secretary Law, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, are present along with the record.

2. The Court was constraint to summon the officers as the matter pertaining to providing domestic help and other facilities to the former Chief Justices and former Judges of this Court was kept pending on one pretext or the other. On repeated request made by the learned Additional Advocate General, that the matter is pending consideration at the highest level, as many as, five adjournments over several months was granted. However, the authorities did not take decision.

3. The Principal Secretary Law, at the outset, points out that the matter was placed before the Finance Department for approval on six occasions, but the approval was not accorded.

4. On query, Secretary Finance, submits that the proposed Rules submitted by the High Court is beyond the 'competence of the Chief Justice' as the matter pertains to the post retiral benefits of the retired Judges. Further, Special Secretary, Finance stated that the Rules proposed by the High Court in the matter was beyond the scope of Article 229 of the Constitution of India. He further stated that the matter be referred to the Central Government, to draw a Rule that would uniformly be made applicable to the retired Judges across the country.

5. On perusal of the record with the assistance of the learned Additional Advocate General, we do not find any such objection which is being pressed before this Court. In other words, the attitude of the officers of the Finance Department is not only contemptuous, but at the same time their stand/submission with regard to the competence of the Hon'ble Chief Justice/Article 229 is not reflected from the record.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the High Court, at the outset, submits that the approach and attitude of the Finance Department of late has been that of 'big brother', attempting to stall any recommendation/proposal made by the High Court on any matter on one pretext or the other without due deliberation. They do not suggest as to how the matter proposed by the High Court, after due approval of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, could have been carried out, and/or, given effect to. The objections that is being raised do not fall within the ambit of the Finance Department. At the best they should have raised their objection/concerns, if any, with the Law Department. The audacity of the officers to raise the issue of competence of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, is not only unbecoming of a civil servant, but at the same time contemptuous. These objections are not available on record, nor, have it been brought to the notice of the Law Department for legal advice. The Government Order granting benefits to the retired Judges is already in