The Supreme Court on Wednesday urged State Governments to take a fresh and independent call on enhancing the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 62 years, while expressing reservations over the reasons cited by several States for opposing the proposal. During the hearing, the Bench observed that the oft-cited argument of additional financial burden “may not be factually correct”, indicating that retaining experienced judicial officers could prove more beneficial than forcing retirements and filling vacancies afresh.
The matter pertains to a batch of cases concerning the long-pending demand for increasing the retirement age of members of the subordinate judiciary. At the outset, counsel assisting the Court informed the Bench that several States had already taken a decision on the issue. While Telangana had agreed to enhance the retirement age to 61 years pursuant to judicial directions, Madhya Pradesh had indicated that it was still considering the issue. It was also submitted that Assam would take a decision within a week.
The Court noted that the States opposing enhancement had primarily relied on two reasons
● the additional financial burden on the State exchequer and
● the disparity between the retirement age of judicial officers and other State government employees.
“
“Most of the States have expressed their inability to enhance the retirement age on two grounds, first, the additional financial burden, and second, the disparity between the retirement age of judicial officers and State government employees. As regards the first reason, it would be fruitful to remind the States what this Court has already held in its earlier judgments.”
The Court observed that the States’ apprehension was misplaced because immediate retirement itself entails substantial expenditure towards retiral dues and pensionary benefits. It observed that retaining experienced judicial officers postpones retiral liabilities while ensuring continuity in the justice delivery system. The Court also pointed out that vacancies created by retirements have to be filled through fresh recruitment, which itself involves considerable expenditure and time.
The Court, referring to its judgments, further noted that judicial officers cannot be equated with ordinary government servants. Therefore, the second reason assigned by the State Governments for declining enhancement of the retirement age are untenable.
The Bench observed that the issue should preferably be resolved through a consensus-based approach rather than prolonged litigation. It emphasised that State Governments must independently examine the proposal instead of merely relying upon the views expressed by their respective High Courts.
“
“We would like these issues to be resolved through consensus. State Governments should revisit the question of enhancing the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 62 years. The views of the High Courts may be considered by this Court while taking a final decision, but the States are expected to take their own independent call after considering all relevant factors.”
Seeking additional time, several States requested four weeks to examine the issue and place their stand on record. The Bench accepted the request, observing that the Governments should return with concrete proposals after examining the matter comprehensively. However, it also noted the urgency of the issue, remarking that more judicial officers would retire in the meantime, making an early decision desirable.
The Court accordingly granted time to the States to file their affidavits and posted the batch for further hearing after four weeks.