New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked states and Union territories opposing an increase in the retirement age of judicial officers beyond 60 years to reconsider their stand within two weeks, observing that financial burden cannot be a valid reason to deny the benefit.
Hearing a petition filed by the All India Judges Association (AIJA), a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said the reasons cited by several states for opposing the proposal were “misdirected” and urged them to take a pragmatic view.
The bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, noted that most states opposing the move had cited either the additional financial burden or the potential disparity in the retirement ages of government employees vis-a-vis judicial officers.
Rejecting the first objection, the court said, “The reason for additional financial burden appears to be misdirected as a judicial officer on retirement gets a lump sum amount of retiral benefits in addition to pension which is half of their salary.”
On the argument that increasing the retirement age of judges would create disparity with other government employees, the bench said, “This court has dealt with this issue in All India Judges Association case (1993) which said that judicial officers are not government servants. They constitute a distinct and separate class.”
{{/usCountry}}On the argument that increasing the retirement age of judges would create disparity with other government employees, the bench said, “This court has dealt with this issue in All India Judges Association case (1993) which said that judicial officers are not government servants. They constitute a distinct and separate class.”
{{/usCountry}}The court directed states to urgently revisit the issue and said, “States are expected to take their independent call in the light of the factors stated above. The states may revisit their decision, on an urgent basis, and take a call on a pragmatic basis within two weeks.”
The bench observed that retaining experienced judicial officers is in the larger public interest and may reduce the financial burden on states by limiting the need for fresh recruitment to fill vacancies. “The factor of financial burden may not be correct vis-a-vis the utility of judicial officers who are experienced. We feel that the complete and correct perspective is not being provided to states,” it said.
Senior advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, assisting the court as amicus curiae, informed the bench that Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Nagaland and Rajasthan have opposed the proposal, while Delhi and Assam have sought more time. Tamil Nadu has supported raising the retirement age to 61 years, while Andhra Pradesh has decided to do so, following Telangana.
The bench said, “We want to evolve a uniform policy on pan-India basis for which we want to take all states, Union territories and high courts on board.” It also noted that high courts remain divided on the issue, with some favouring retirement at 62 years, others at 61, and a few opposing any increase.
Last month, the Supreme Court had directed states and UTs to consult their respective high courts and, where both agreed, allow judicial officers retiring from April 1, 2026, to continue in service till the age of 61, subject to the final outcome of the case. The matter stems from AIJA’s plea seeking a uniform retirement age for judicial officers across India to remove disparities and improve the efficiency of the district judiciary.