HARYANA STATE RETIRED JUDGES ASSOCIATION, CHANDIGARH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Haryana State Retired Judges Association (in short, the Association), has sought a writ of mandamus against the respondents preventing them from deducting the fixed medical allowance of Rs. 1,500/- per month from the reimbursement of the medical bills of retired judicial officers/family pensioners.

(2.) The petitioner is an association of the retired judicial officers of the State of Haryana. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that Justice Shetty Commission had recommended the grant of medical benefits to both serving and retired judicial officers and in accordance with para19.125 the payment of fixed medical allowance in cash per month, was recommended. The petitioner-Association then submits that on the next revision of pay which fell due on 01.01.2006, the Supreme Court of India had appointed One Man Committee headed by Justice E. Padmanabhan and in para 31(c) of the report it was stated that the fixed medical allowance should be increased to Rs. 1,500/- per month to retired judicial officers. The Supreme Court accepted the said recommendation vide order dated 02.08.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed in I.A. No.244 in Writ Petition (civil) No.1022 of 1989. Pursuant thereto the respondent issued orders dated 03.05.2006 (Annexure P-2) and 03.11.2011 (Annexure P-6) and accordingly the payment of Rs. 1,500/- per month, as stated above, was in fact being made. However, in case of one of the judicial officers a communication was issued by the Registrar of this Court to Mr. R. P. Bajaj, District and Sessions Judge (Retired), informing him that fixed medical allowance @ Rs. 1,500/- per month could not be given and therefore the same was deducted for a period of eight months from the medical bills. This was obviously on the instructions of the Government of Haryana in its finance department.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner-Association vehemently argued that the said action, on the part of the State of Haryana, is in contradistinction of its orders dated 03.05.2006 (Annexure P-2) and 03.11.2011 (Annexure P-6), besides being in violation of the order made by the Apex Court which accepted the recommendation of Committee of Justice E. Padmanabhan vide order dated 02.08.2010 cited supra. He then submitted that no reason was given for taking such action by the government but now the State of Haryana has disclosed its stand in its written statement filed in this writ petition in which there is a clear confirmation that the Government of Haryana would not make payment of said fixed medical allowance and therefore the grievance of the petitioner-Association based on the cause of action in respect of the writ petition made in the case of Mr. R. P. Bajaj, District and Sessions Judge (Retired), will have to be redressed. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Association contended that the action of the respondents is unjustified and not according to law and thus prayed for allowing the writ petition.