Early Times Report
New Delhi, Oct 26: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed satisfaction that as many as 14 states have agreed to raise the retirement age of district judicial officers from 60 to 62 years and refused to list for urgent hearing the separate pleas of judges who are on the verge of retiring or have just retired.
“This pertains to the persuasive jurisdiction of this court. The issue is between the Supreme Court and the states,” a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said while declining to list individual pleas of judges who have to demit office after reaching the age of 60 years.
The CJI said that so far 14 states have agreed to raise the retirement age to 62 years and “we are hopeful that others will also follow.” The bench said though it has listed the petition for hearing, it did not approve the moving of individual pleas by judicial officers.
Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar mentioned the plea for listing saying that judicial officers are retiring every day.
On September 4, the bench had directed states to raise the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 62 years.
The bench had said judicial officers in the seven states-Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal- have superannuated on or after March 31 this year shall be given an option to re-join the judicial office, if they have not already obtained subsequent employment.
These states, which have consented to the enhancement of age of the Judicial Officers, are directed to amend the service rules and extend the age of superannuation in the judicial service to 62 years, subject to the suitability assessment of the concerned judicial officer by the high court, the bench had said, adding such amendments shall be carried out preferably within two months.
“Pending amendment of the rules, no judicial officer in the aforesaid States who has attained the age of 60 years shall superannuate until he attains the age of 62 years, subject to an assessment of his suitability and performance by the High Court concerned,” it had said.
The top court had directed Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam,Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Keralam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana, Tripura, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, NCT of Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, and Puducherry to reconsider their decision on enhancing retirement age of judicial officers.
Earlier, the bench had said that states cannot cite financial burden to oppose raising the retirement age of judicial officers. It had asked state governments to revisit the issue of enhancing the age of superannuation of judges.
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.
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. |
