States cannot cite financial burden to oppose raising retirement age of judicial officers: SC

Observing that states cannot cite financial burden to oppose raising the retirement age of judicial officers, the Supreme Court on Wednesday, August 5, asked state governments to revisit the issue of enhancing the age of superannuation of judges and decide within two weeks.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said concerns of financial burden are "misconceived".

"We impress upon all the state governments to revisit the issue of enhancement of the age of retirement of judicial officers, irrespective of the age of superannuation prescribed for other government employees," the bench said.

The top court said retaining experienced judicial officers may impose a lesser financial liability than retiring them and filling the resulting vacancies.

"We have no reason to doubt that the continuation of experienced and seasoned judicial officers would entail a lesser financial liability than what the State would incur upon their retirement.

"The reasons assigned by the State governments for declining to enhance the age of retirement are, therefore, untenable. However, we are of the considered opinion that the larger issue should be resolved through consensual measures," the bench said.

In its order, the top court said the issue shall be revisited on an urgent basis and an independent and pragmatic decision shall be taken within two weeks.

"In the event a state government decides to enhance the age of retirement, the benefit of such decision shall also be extended to judicial officers who retire during the intervening period," the bench said.

The top court had earlier asked the states and union territories to consider raising the age of superannuation of judicial officers from 60 to 61 years.

The bench was hearing a petition seeking uniform enhancement of the retirement age of district judiciary judges from 60 to 62 years across the country.

"All state governments and union territories (UTs) are directed to take a decision, in consultation with their respective jurisdictional high courts, on this issue. In case they agree, judicial officers in such states shall be permitted to continue in service up to the age of 61 years. Such continuation shall remain subject to the final outcome of these proceedings," the bench ordered.

While the retirement age of Supreme Court judges is 65, the high court judges superannuate at the age of 62 years.

The issue arises against the backdrop of the top court's 2002 judgment declining to accept the recommendation of the Justice K Jagannatha Shetty Commission, which had proposed raising the retirement age of district judges to 62 years.

Since then, some states, including Telangana and Madhya Pradesh, have moved towards increasing the retirement age.

On November 20, last year, a bench headed by the then CJI B R Gavai, since retired, had raised the retirement age of judicial officers of Madhya Pradesh from 60 to 61 years.

The bench, in its interim order, had referred to a similar decision taken by the Telangana High Court.

It asked why judicial officers should be denied the relief when the state government was willing to do so.