Back
SUPREME COURT
Swatanter Kumar, J
Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Government of Maharashtra v. S. C. Malte and Others
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court disagrees with judgment of lower court. (Para 2 , 19) |
| 2. statutory provisions for medical facilities for retired judges. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. variability of medical benefits among states. (Para 7 , 8 , 11) |
| 4. judicial independence affected by unequal medical provisions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. court's directive for uniformity in medical benefits. (Para 40 , 41) |
1.Leave granted.
2. I have read the judgment of my learned brother Justice Swatanter Kumar but with due respect to his learning I am unable to persuade myself to agree with his conclusion that the appeals have no merit and with the directions in his judgment. In my view, the appeals should be allowed and the impugned orders of the High Court should be set aside for reasons whichI shall indicate after setting out the facts.
3. The facts very briefly are that S.23D of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”) provides for medical facilities for retired Judges. Sub-section (1) of S.23D provides that every retired Judge shall be entitled for himself and his family to the same facilities as respects medical treatment and on the same conditions as a ret
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
