BREAKING| States Cannot Cite Financial Burden To Oppose Raising Judicial Officers' Retirement Age : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that States cannot oppose enhancement of the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 62 years on the ground of additional financial burden, or citing the reason that the retirement age of government servants was different.

Rejecting both these reasons as "untenable", the Court directed all States that have opposed enhancement of the retirement age to revisit the issue independently and take a fresh decision at the earliest within two weeks. The Court clarified that the States will not be precluded from approving the enhancement of retirement age merely because the jurisdictional High Court has taken a contrary view. The objections of the High Courts will be considered at an appropriate time, the Court stated.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made these observations while hearing the All India Judges Association case concerning enhancement of the retirement age of members of the district judiciary.

Earlier, the Court had sought the responses of the States and the High Courts on the proposal to increase the retirement age of District Judges from the age of 60 years.

Most of the States expressed inability to enhance the age of retirement citing two reasons - "additional financial burden" and "disparity in the age of retirement of judicial officers and State Govt officials."

Rejecting the financial burden argument advanced by several States, the Bench said that continuation of experienced judicial officers would avoid immediate vacancies, recruitment exercises, and the associated costs of training and induction. It noted that the apprehension of increased financial liability was therefore misplaced.

Observing that experienced judicial officers are an institutional asset, the Court said retaining them in service could, in fact, impose a lower financial liability than retiring them and appointing fresh officers to fill the resulting vacancies.

As regards the second reason, the Court highlighted the distinction between judicial officers and government servants. "Judicial officers are not government servants though they are appointed by the State Government. They constitute a distinct and separate class," the bench observed, rejecting the objection.

"We impress upon the States to revisit the issue re enhancemne of retiremnt age of retirement age from 60 to 62 years, irrespective of the age of superannuation prescribed for government officers," the Court stated.

The order further clarified, "The state Govts 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 High Courts will be considered by this Court at the appropriate time."

"State governments are expected to take an independent call; the issue be revisited on an urgent basis, and a pragmatic approach be taken, within two weeks," the Court ordered.

The Court heard Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, amicus curiae, Advocate Generals of various States, Senior Advocates Vikas Singh, Vijay Hansaria, etc before passing the order.

Case Title: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989