Supreme Court Requests Jharkhand HC CJ To Consider Plea To Enhance Retirement Age Of Judicial Officers

The Supreme Court today, while refusing to entertain a plea seeking enhancement of superannuation age of Jharkhand District Judges from 60 to 61 years, asked the Chief Justice of the High Court to consider the issue on the administrative side. 

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and R Mahadevan was hearing plea filed by District Magistrate Mr Ranjeet Kumar. 

As per the Jharkhand Service Rules, the age of retirement of the judicial officers is 60 years. 

Referring to enhancement of retirement age of officers in the State of Telangana, the counsel stressed, " we are praying for uniformity amongst judicial officers - it will create a homogenous class if (uniformity is there)" 

He added that there is no 'intelligible differentia' between the judicial officers of Jharkhand and Telangana. 

Notably, the Counsel relied on an 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 CJI however weighed in to point out "uniformity has to be,but uniformity doesn't mean that just before retirement you file a petition before the Court for continuation (of tenure)." 

The Counsel also submitted that the other relief sought was directions for re-employment of the officer after retirement, as 17 other states have allowed re-employment in similar cases. 

Considering it be an issue falling in the policy domain of the executive, the bench refused to interfere in the matter and passed the following : 

"The direction sought by the petitioner to enhance the age of retirement to 61 or 62 years requires a policy decision and consequential amendment in the Service Rules. In some of the states , the age of retirement of judicial officers in 61 years, primarily on the account that the age of retirement of the government officers in the state is also 62 years."

"There can be no doubt that a holistic view on this issue is required to be taken by all the stakeholders,primarily to ensure that the conditions in service- the age of recruitment or retirement in all the state are at par. It will however not be prudent to resolve this issue through a judicial dictate for the purpose of granting (inaudible)...we are thus not inclined to entertain this writ petition." 

The bench however granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court, who may consider the request in consultation with the state government on the administrative side.

" We grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the Chief Justice of the High Court, who in turn is requested to gather information from the other states, and if it is found that there is some disparity in the matter of prescription of age of superannuation, the matter be taken up on the administrative side with the State Government and other authorities for appropriate resolution of the issue."  

Last year in May, the bench of then CJI, Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih 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.

Case Details : RANJEET KUMAR vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND | W.P.(C) No. 000034 / 2026