Supreme Court Allows Members Of MP Judges Association To Continue In Service Till 61 Years

The Supreme Court on Thursday, as an interim relief, allowed the members of the MP Judges Association to continue their service as district judges till they reach the age of 61 years, as opposed to the earlier superannuation age of 60 years. 

The bench of CJI BR Gavai, Justices K Vinod Chandran and PB Varale was hearing the challenge to the administrative order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which refused to increase the retirement age of judicial officers in the state from 60 to 61 years. The Petition has been filed by the MP Judges Association.

The Association contends that this was in clear violation of the Supreme Court's directions on May 26. The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih had clarified that there was no impediment in raising the retirement age of District Judges to 61 years and asked the Madhya Pradesh High Court to take an administrative decision on enhancing the retirement age within 3 months.

Sr Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, appearing for the MP High Court, stressed that the present case cannot be compared to the Telangana High Court's case, where the district judge's retirement was enhanced to 61 Years. According to him, in that instance, the High Court itself sought the enhancement; however, the MP High Court presently cannot accommodate such an extension of tenure. 

Notably, in the May 26 order, the Court relied on its earlier order in an application filed by the Telangana State Government in the All India Judges Association Case. Here, the Telangana High Court had sought clarification on a similar issue of increasing the retirement age of district judges to 61 years. The Court allowed it.

Senior Advocate Ajit S Bhasme, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that they were only seeking enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 61 years and not 62 years. This, he emphasised, was at parity with the relief given to Telangana district judges.

Considering the same, the bench noted that while, as per MP Service Rules, other government employees would enjoy the benefit of 62 years as their retirement age, it would be unreasonable to consider the enhancement of retirement age for district judges to the age of 61 years. 

" When all other employees working in the state of Madhya Pradesh would enjoy the age of retirement as 62 years, we see no reason as to why the petitioners, members of the petitioner association, would be denied the benefit of retirement at the age of 61 years." 

The bench, as an ad interim measure, directed "that the members of the petitioner association will be entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 61 years." 

Background

In the plea filed by the petitioner association, it is stated that the copy of the administrative order has not been provided and the decision was communicated orally through the Registrar General of the MP High Court.

"It is also pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble High Court has even refused to provide a copy of its decision dt.22.08.2025 taken on administrative side to the petitioner. The office bearer of the Petitioner association was orally informed by the Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh that their plea for enhancement of age of superannuation has been kept in abeyance / rejected on the newly discovered ground that at present there is no requirement do so."

The plea highlights that such conduct amounted to 'step-motherly treatment'

"It is submitted that "the negative attitude adopted by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh", in this matter of legitimate expectation of the thousands of Judicial officers serving in the State of Madhya Pradesh, is clear cut example of the "step motherly treatment" meted out to the judicial officers of the Sub-ordinate Judiciary at the hand of their own Guardian Court (The Hon'ble High Court)."

Counsels for the petitioner : Ajit S. Bhasme, Sr. advocate; Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR; Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Adv; Ms. Shuchi Singh, Adv; Ujjwal Kumar Dubey, Adv; Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv; Devendra Kumar Shukla, Adv; Ms. Shivani Mishra, Adv

Case Details : Case Details: MADHYA PRADESH JUDGES ASSOCIATION Versus THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.| W.P.(C) No. 000986 / 2025 

Click Here To Read/Download Order