7 States agree to raise retirement age of judicial officers to 62; Supreme Court asks other States, UTs to do the same

The retirement age of judicial officers in seven States - Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal - is set to rise to 62 from 60 after their respective State governments accorded sanction to the move [All India Judges Association v. Union of India].

The Supreme Court has now directed those States to amend their service rules and formally raise the age of superannuation of judicial officers to 62 years, preferably within two months.

"The States which have consented to the enhancement of age of the Judicial Officers, namely, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, are directed to amend the service rules and enhance the age of superannuation in the judicial service to 62 years, subject to the suitability assessment of the concerned Judicial Officer, on their attainment of the age of 60 years, by the High Court. Such amendments shall be carried out as early as possible, preferably within two months," the order passed by the Court on September 1 said.

The extension, however, has been made subject to a suitability assessment by the concerned High Court when the judicial officer attains the age of 60 years.

Pending amendment of the rules, the Court directed that judicial officers in these seven States who have attained 60 years shall not superannuate until attaining 62 years, subject to the assessment of their suitability and performance by the concerned High Court.

The Bench further permitted judicial officers in these seven States who superannuated on or after March 31, 2026, to exercise an option to rejoin judicial service, provided they have not subsequently obtained employment or been appointed to any other office of profit under the Union or State government.

Those opting to rejoin would be entitled to consequential benefits of pay, seniority and continuity in service, subject to suitability and performance assessment by the High Court. They would also be required to surrender post-retirement benefits, if any, already granted to them.

The directions were passed by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.

As regards other States and Union Territories which have refused to raise the retirement age or are still deliberating the issue, the Court ordered them to reconsider their respective positions or take an appropriate decision with two weeks on raising the retirement age from 60 to 62 years.

The Bench also asked those States to file a compliance report.

“We have taken into consideration the fact that age differential may be a legitimate expectation in the superior judiciary. But, the crying need of the hour is to ensure that the attrition of the experienced judicial talent be arrested so that the gap between the sanctioned and the working strength in the judicial service is reduced, and access to justice does not remain a mere chimera due to unfilled posts. It is with this spirit that we request the High Courts and States to reconsider the issue with regard to enhancement of age of superannuation in the district judiciary, whose conditions of service are to be governed by rules framed on their recommendation,” the Bench said in its order.

The Court passed the directions while considering the issue of enhancement of the retirement age of members of the District Judiciary across the country.

During an earlier hearing on August 5, the Court had called upon the High Courts and the State governments/ UT administrations to give their response with regard to the enhancement of the retirement age of district judges.

Pursuant to the same, responses were filed by High Courts and States.

When the matter was taken up for hearing on September 1, the Court examined the responses and noted that while most High Courts agreed to the proposal to raise the retirement age to 62, the responses of the State governments / UT administrations were varied.

While some of them agreed to the recommendations of the High Courts to enhance the age of superannuation, others either sought time for further consideration or demurred, primarily on the grounds that it would be an additional burden on the State exchequer or that such enhancement could cause heartburn amongst other employees in the service of the State.

States also flagged concerns that such an enhancement would affect the legitimate aspirations of the young entrants in judicial services.

The Supreme Court observed that judicial service is distinct from other services of the State and rejected the apprehension that an enhancement of the retirement age for judicial officers could lead to similar demands from other government employees.

"The enhancement of the age of superannuation of judicial officers cannot be permitted to have a cascading effect on the principle of parity claimed by other employees,” the Court observed.

The Court also rejected the concern regarding the additional financial burden on States if the retirement age of district judges were increased.

It observed that raising the retirement age could postpone the State's burden to bear post-retirement liabilities with respect to retired judicial officers.

The Court also pointed out that increasing the retirement age could also reduce the expenditure incurred by the State on recruiting and training judicial officers appointed to replace retired officers.

The Bench flagged the persistent gap between the sanctioned and working strength of the district judiciary. The recruitment of competent and independent judicial officers is an arduous task and several recruitment exercises have not resulted in optimum filling of sanctioned posts, the Court added.

Retaining experienced judicial officers could help arrest the attrition of judicial talent and reduce the gap between sanctioned and working strength, thereby strengthening the administration of justice, the Court went on to hold.

At the same time, the Bench welcomed the proposal for suitability and performance assessments for officers crossing 60 years, observing that such a mechanism would help retain experienced judicial officers while ensuring that unsuitable officers do not continue in service.

The Court noted that the retirement age of judicial officers was last enhanced in 1992 and observed that more than three decades had elapsed since then.

“During this period, the sanctioned strength of the judicial service in most States has been increased, and a substantial number of posts have remained vacant on account of the non-availability of eligible candidates. The induction of competent judicial officers is a sine qua non for the preservation of an independent judiciary, which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution,” it observed.

Hence, it directed the State governments other than the seven that have consented to increasing the retirement age to reconsider the issue positively within two weeks.

The matter will be heard next on October 1.

[Read Order]