SC says states cannot oppose raising judicial officers’ retirement age to 62 citing financial burden
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK New Delhi, Aug 5: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that State governments cannot oppose the proposal to…
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
New Delhi, Aug 5: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that State governments cannot oppose the proposal to raise the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 62 years by citing financial burden or the difference between the retirement age of judges and government employees.
Calling both grounds “untenable”, the apex court directed all States that have opposed the proposal to independently reconsider the issue and take a fresh decision within two weeks.
The Court also clarified that State governments are free to approve the enhancement of the retirement age even if their respective High Courts have expressed reservations. It said the concerns raised by the High Courts would be examined separately at an appropriate stage.
Supreme Court Bench Hearing the Case
The observations were made by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana while hearing the All India Judges Association case on enhancing the retirement age of members of the district judiciary.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had sought responses from all States and High Courts on the proposal to increase the retirement age of district judges from 60 to 62 years.
States Opposed Proposal on Two Grounds
Most State governments opposed the proposal, citing two principal reasons:
- The increase would impose an additional financial burden on the exchequer.
- Raising the retirement age would create a disparity between judicial officers and State government employees, whose retirement age remains lower.
The Supreme Court rejected both arguments.
Court Rejects Financial Burden Argument
Rejecting the financial burden contention, the Bench observed that retaining experienced judicial officers would actually reduce long-term expenditure by preventing immediate vacancies, minimising recruitment drives and cutting the costs associated with training and inducting new officers.
The Court said the apprehension of increased financial liability was misplaced, adding that experienced judicial officers are an institutional asset whose continued service strengthens the justice delivery system while reducing administrative costs.
Judicial Officers Are Not Government Servants
On the issue of parity with government employees, the Bench stressed that judicial officers constitute a separate constitutional class and cannot be equated with State government servants merely because they are appointed by the State Government.
“Judicial officers are not government servants though they are appointed by the State Government. They constitute a distinct and separate class,” the Bench observed while rejecting the objection.
States Asked to Take Independent Decision
Emphasising the need for an independent approach, the Court observed:
“We impress upon the States to revisit the issue regarding enhancement of the retirement age from 60 to 62 years, irrespective of the age of superannuation prescribed for government officers.”
The Bench further clarified:
“The State Governments must not be restrained from taking a positive decision only because the jurisdictional High Court has not approved the enhancement of the age. The viewpoint of the High Courts will be considered by this Court at the appropriate time.”
Directing urgent action, the Court ordered:
“State governments are expected to take an independent call. The issue should be revisited on an urgent basis and a pragmatic approach be adopted within two weeks.”
Before passing the order, the Court heard Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, appearing as amicus curiae, Advocate Generals representing various States, and Senior Advocates Vikas Singh, Vijay Hansaria and others.
