Supreme Court clarifies which State has to bear expenses for medical benefits of retired HC judges

The Supreme Court recently clarified an earlier directive issued by it on which State should bear expenses for medical benefits given to retired High Court judges [Justice VS Dave President, Association of Retd. Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts vs. Kusumjit Sidhu & Ors.]..A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan indicated that in cases of transfer of High Court judges, the State with the High Court from which the transferred judge retires should bear the medical reimbursement expenses. In other cases (where a judge may remain in the parent High Court throughout judicial service), the State with the High Court seat to which the judge was first appointed will bear the expense. “When we say the concerned State Government, it will be the State Government where the seat of the High Court is situated in which the retired judge was firstly appointed or the State Government where the seat of the High Court is situated from which the learned judge has retired,” the Court said in an April 15 order..This clarification addressed paragraph 9 of the Court’s earlier order of February 18, 2025 order, which said that all medical reimbursements should be made by the “concerned State Government.""When we say the concerned State Governments, it will be the State Government where the seat of the High Court is situated from which the learned judge has retired. Obviously, the concerned State Government shall reimburse even if the treatment is taken in a hospital outside that State," the High Court had said in its February order. .On April 15, the top court also cautioned that it would initiate contempt of court proceedings against States and Union Territories that fail to comply with its directions on providing uniform medical benefits to retired High Court judges, their spouses, and dependentsThe Court further directed States to file fresh compliance affidavits within one week, detailing implementation of the Court’s earlier orders on medical reimbursements, cashless treatment, and other benefits for retired judges. "We are putting the State to the notice that if we find non-compliance, action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1981 will be initiated," the Court added. The matter will be taken up next on April 29 at 2 PM..The Court was hearing a contempt petition filed by the President of the Association of Retired Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, retired Justice VS Dave. The petition has been pending since 2015 over the non-implementation of uniform post-retirement medical facilities for judges across States..In its latest order, the Court noted that several States had filed affidavits claiming compliance with earlier directives, but failed to provide uniform implementation in line with earlier orders of October 2018, April 2019 and February 2025.These orders had mandated:- Medical benefits at par with sitting judges;- Reimbursement for private hospital treatment without prior State approval;- Sanctioning authority to lie with the Registrar General of the High Court;- Reimbursement even if treatment is taken outside the State; and- A functional cashless facility..States have now been directed to forward their updated affidavits to the Amicus Curiae, who has been asked to prepare a compliance chart indicating the extent of implementation by each State.The Court had earlier rebuked certain States, including Madhya Pradesh, for delays in implementing the cashless facility directive and had ordered immediate compliance..[Read Order]