SC refuses urgent hearing on pleas of individual retiring judicial officers, says issue is between court and states

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday, October 26, expressed satisfaction that 14 states have so far agreed to raise the retirement age of district judicial officers from 60 to 62 years. It declined to list for urgent hearing the separate pleas of judges who are about to retire or have recently retired.

Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar mentioned the plea for listing, saying that judicial officers are retiring every day. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the matter lies within the court’s persuasive jurisdiction and is an issue between the Supreme Court and the states. The bench said that while it has listed the main petition, it does not approve individual judicial officers moving the court separately.

The Chief Justice said he was hopeful that the remaining states would follow the 14 that have agreed.

The bench was hearing a petition seeking a uniform increase in the retirement age of district judges across the country from 60 to 62 years. Supreme Court judges retire at 65, while high court judges retire at 62.

In September, the court directed seven states, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, which had consented to the increase, to amend their service rules, preferably within two months, and extend the age of superannuation to 62, subject to a suitability assessment by the high court concerned. Until the rules are amended, no judicial officer in these states who has turned 60 is to retire before 62, subject to the same assessment. Officers in these states who retired on or after March 31 this year are to be given the option to rejoin, if they have not taken up other employment.

The bench had asked the other states and Union Territories, including Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi, to reconsider their stand.

The court has earlier rejected the argument that the increase would burden state finances, observing that judicial officers join service late and are already on the payroll. It has said that if officers retired at 60, the state would bear their post-retirement dues in addition to the salaries of those newly appointed, while continuing to 62 would postpone those dues. On August 6, the same bench held that judicial officers are not government servants but a distinct class, so their retirement age can differ from that of other state employees. The bench had also told advocates general of reluctant states to impress upon their chief ministers to fall in line.

During that hearing, the Madhya Pradesh High Court told the bench that its Full Court had resolved to raise the retirement age of district judges to 62, while Punjab and Haryana were among the states opposing the proposal.

The issue goes back to the Supreme Court’s 2002 judgment, which declined to accept the Justice K Jagannatha Shetty Commission’s recommendation to raise the age to 62. Since then, some states, including Telangana and Madhya Pradesh, have moved towards increasing it.

(With Inputs From PTI)