SC asks Government to frame former-judges’ benefits policy

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre to set up a panel for a uniform national policy regarding post-retirement benefits like services of drivers, security and stay in Government accommodations while travelling for former high court judges.

Observing that there was a wide disparity in benefits extended by different states, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to set up within two weeks the panel, which in turn, give its report on the issue within three months.

The bench was hearing a contempt petition filed by Justice VS Dave, President of the Association of Retired Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, raising the issue of security and other facilities for retired judges.

During the hearing, the CJI questioned the adequacy of the financial assistance currently provided by some states for engaging security personnel and drivers. “In `45,000-50,000, is it possible to get a driver and a security officer,” the CJI asked.

“There is a lack of uniformity among states. One way is that the Government of India constitutes a committee and prescribes norms. The Central Government may also match grants. If you don’t do it, I will have to constitute one,” the CJI told the solicitor general.

The law officer said the Government had no difficulty in constituting such a committee.

“There is no difficulty. We can constitute it. This is an issue which needs to be addressed. It will be addressed in the spirit expressed,” Mehta said.

In its order, the bench said the proceedings concern the admissibility of various post-retirement benefits and facilities to retired Chief Justices and judges of high courts.

“The issue that falls for consideration in these proceedings revolves around certain benefits/facilities to be made admissible to retired Chief Justices and judges of high courts,” the court said.

The order noted that basic facilities such as domestic help, drivers, telephone facilities, medical reimbursement and retention of Government accommodation vary considerably from one state to another.

“Basic facilities like domestic help, driver, telephone, medical reimbursement, stay in Government houses, etc., vary from state to state. It further appears that the lack of uniformity has prompted the Association of Retired Judges to first approach the authorities and thereafter invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court,” the bench said.

The court further said the Centre is a vital stakeholder in the matter, particularly as any framework may involve sharing the financial burden with the States.