The Supreme Court on Thursday suggested that a former High Court Chief Justice should head the committee being constituted by the Centre to frame a uniform national policy on post-retirement benefits and facilities for former High Court judges.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati that the government had decided to constitute the panel in accordance with the court’s earlier directions.
The law officers said a former secretary-level officer had been chosen to chair the committee. The Chief Justice, however, suggested that a former High Court Chief Justice should preside over it.
Mehta agreed to consider the suggestion and told the bench that the government would revert on September 28.
Court Had Sought Uniform National Policy
The proceedings concern facilities available to retired Chief Justices and judges of High Courts, including drivers, security personnel, domestic help, telephone facilities, medical reimbursement and government accommodation while travelling.
On July 20, the Supreme Court had directed the Centre to constitute a committee within two weeks to examine the issue and formulate a uniform national policy. The panel was also asked to submit its report within three months.
On August 20, the court granted the Centre another week to constitute the committee.
The matter arises from a contempt petition filed by Justice V S Dave, president of the Association of Retired Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, concerning security and other facilities for retired judges.
Bench Flags Differences Between States
During an earlier hearing, the Chief Justice questioned whether financial assistance of ₹45,000 to ₹50,000 provided by some states was sufficient to engage both a driver and a security officer.
The bench also pointed to the absence of uniform standards across states and suggested that the Union government could constitute a committee to prescribe common norms. It further indicated that the Centre could consider matching grants where financial sharing with states was required.
Mehta had told the court that the government had no difficulty constituting such a committee and acknowledged that the issue required attention.
In its order, the bench noted that the proceedings relate to the benefits and facilities that should be made available to retired Chief Justices and judges of High Courts.
The court recorded that facilities such as domestic assistance, drivers, telephone services, medical reimbursement and access to government accommodation differ considerably from one state to another. It observed that this lack of uniformity had led the Association of Retired Judges to approach the authorities before invoking the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.
The bench also noted that the Centre is an important stakeholder because any uniform framework may involve sharing the financial burden with state governments.
