IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATIONL NO.73 OF 2008 IN SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 of 2005 SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 of 2005 SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 of 2005 The Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare ..Applicant Versus S.C. Malte & Ors ...Respondents Mr. V.S. Masurkar, Government Pleader for the Applicant Mr.Girish Kulkarni, for the Respondents Mr. V.K. Kanade, Principal Secretary, Finance Department present. Mr. V.R. Patil, Joint Secretary, Law & Judiciary, present. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO CORAM : F.I. REBELLO CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. DATED : 22ND APRIL,2008 DATED : 22ND APRIL,2008 DATED : 22ND APRIL,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . This a Review Petition filed by the State of Maharashtra for reviewing the order of this Court dated 15th January, 2007. 2. By that order the draft Rules as submitted on behalf of the State of Maharashtra were taken on record and the order was passed in terms of the said draft Rules, which were annexed as "X" for identification. The Rules as submitted cover all retired High Court Judges who were appointed to the High Court of Bombay and are residing either in the State of Maharashtra and Goa. . The State of Maharashtra, according to the learned Counsel, had no difficulty in extending the benefits to Judges where the Central Government Health Scheme is not available. In Maharashtra State the Central Government Health Scheme is available only in three cities, namely Mumbai, Nagpur and Pune. In the State of Goa the Central Government Health Scheme is not available. 3. At today’s hearing on behalf of the State it is sought to be contended that the amendments made to the Rules was objected to by Mr. R.D. Rane, Government Pleader. In the Review Petition we find the following observation:- "The Hon’ble Court made a query, on the objection taken by Mr. R.D. Rane - Government Pleader, with the then Principal Secretary and RLA Mr. Ashok P. Bhangale, and then effected the change in the approved rules." The Draft Rules were submitted by the Principal Secretary and RLA to the Government of Maharashtra. Once that be the case the question of exercising the review jurisdiction would not apply as the order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record, as what the Court took on record was the draft rules as corrected and submitted to the Court on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. 4. Before the original order was passed the matter was adjourned from time to time for the purpose of getting the response of the State Government considering the contentions raised by the learned Amicus Curiae. The revised draft was submitted by the State Government after adjournments were taken. . We may only note that the attention of the State Government was invited to the communication sent by the Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, Government of India dated 15th My, 1980 under No.24/19/79-Jus. Considering sub-section (2) of Section 23D of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, some State Governments had extended the facility of medical treatment to the retired Judges of their respective High Courts. The facilities extended by the State of Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh were also brought to the attention of the State Government. The sanctioned strength of the High Court of Allahabad is much more than that of the High Court of Bombay. On behalf of the Writ Petitioners learned Counsel had also pointed out that other High Courts had also similarly extended the benefits. . The State Government cannot now take a stand contrary to the Rules submitted to this Court. 5. The High Court of Bombay was established under the Goa, Daman and Dui State Reorganisation Act and a common High Court for the States of Maharashtra, and Goa and the Union Territories of Daman, Dui, Dadra and Nagar Haveli was established. The expenses of the High Court have to be initially borne by the Government of Maharashtra . Considering that the Judges of this Court come both from the State of Maharashtra and the State of Goa as also transferred Judges, clarifications were made in the draft Rules submitted to this Court. 6. Under these circumstances the interim order of this Court earlier passed will cover all Judges appointed to this Court and have since retired and are residing in the State of Maharashtra as also Goa where the Central Government Health Scheme is not available, till the new Rules are notified. 7. In our opinion, there is no merit in the review application which is rejected. The stand of the State Government, we are only saying, is surprising. 8. The order disposing of the petition in terms of the Rules submitted by the Government was passed on 15th January, 2007. During the pendency of the Review Petition no interim relief was granted. However, as the matter was under consideration the petitioners did not move by way of contempt for failure to comply with the order passed by this Court based on the Rules submitted by the State of Maharashtra. Under these circumstances we direct the State of Maharashtra within two months from today to comply with the order of this Court in terms of the Rules which were submitted to this Court. With the above observations Review Petition rejected. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J) (F.I.REBELLO, J) (F.I.REBELLO, J)