Early Times Report
NEW DELHI, Sept 4: In a bid to ensure that the attrition of the experienced judicial talent stops and access to justice does not remain a mere chimera, the Supreme Court has directed seven states to raise retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 62 years.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said judicial officers in the seven states who 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.
“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 bench said.
“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 said.
The top court 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
The apex court asked these states and Union Territories to decide the issue within two weeks and submit a compliance report. The top court said it has 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.
The court said some high courts have wisely added relevant riders with regard to assessment of judicial work as a condition precedent so that “dead wood” can be removed, and only the competent officers of proven integrity may be permitted to continue in the cadre.
“This suggestion is most welcome as it would balance the preservation of experienced judicial officers while removing the clog of deadwood, blocking the entrance of young blood invigorating the system,” the bench said.
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. |
