Guwahati: The Supreme Court has given 23 States and Union Territories two weeks to decide whether judicial officers should be allowed to remain in service until 62, citing the need to retain experienced judges amid more than 5.18 crore cases pending in district courts.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said retaining experienced judicial officers could help address vacancies and improve the functioning of the justice system.
In its September 1 order, published on September 4, the Bench said seven States, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, had already agreed to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62.
The court directed these seven States to amend their service rules within two months. Under the proposed arrangement, judicial officers could continue until 62 after being assessed by the concerned High Court for their suitability at the age of 60.
The other 23 States and Union Territories have either opposed the proposal or are yet to take a clear decision. They are Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana, Tripura, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, and Puducherry.
The Bench said the States had raised concerns about the financial cost of extending service and the possibility that employees in other State services could seek similar benefits. It rejected those concerns, saying judicial officers form a specialised category of public service.
The court relied on a 1992 judicial precedent which held that the additional expenditure from extending the retirement age would be insignificant compared with the wider benefits to the justice system and society.
The Bench said States would otherwise have to meet the retirement benefits of officers leaving service at 60 while also paying the salaries of newly appointed judicial officers.
Allowing experienced officers to serve until 62 would defer the payment of their post-retirement benefits.
The court also referred to the difficulty of recruiting sufficient judicial officers to fill sanctioned posts. It said recruitment exercises in several States had failed to fill the sanctioned strength, leaving a continuing gap between the number of approved posts and officers actually in service.
Most State High Courts have supported increasing the retirement age, the Bench said, citing the heavy pressure on the justice system.
The court also referred to safeguards adopted by some High Courts, including the Madras High Court. Under such arrangements, an officer’s judicial performance would be assessed before allowing the person to continue beyond 60.
The Bench said such assessments could help retain experienced officers while ensuring that only those considered suitable continued in service.
The case will be heard next on October 1.