Even because the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom favoured enhancing the retirement age of judicial officers in Punjab and Haryana from 60 years to 62 years, the 2 states have opposed any such transfer.
“The prevailing retirement age of 60 years is legally legitimate and doesn’t warrant alteration within the state at this stage,” the Punjab Authorities advised the Supreme Courtroom. The Haryana Authorities too opposed the concept, saying “the state authorities reiterated its stand to not increase the age of judicial officers past 60 years.”
Whereas the Himachal Pradesh Excessive Courtroom favoured enhancing the age of retirement of judicial officers from 60 years to 62 years, the state authorities’s stand was not clear because it has not filed any affidavit on the contentious concern to this point.
Assam, Bihar, Keralam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand too have opposed the transfer to reinforce the age of retirement of judicial officers to 62 years. Whereas a number of states stated they have been “actively” contemplating the proposal, a few of them have been but to spell out their respective stand.
The Bench, nevertheless, in its September 1 order requested the non-consenting states to rethink their stand and posted the matter for listening to on October 1.
Nevertheless, there was consensus amongst excessive courts on enhancing the age of superannuation of judicial officers from 60 years to 62 years whilst some excessive courts really useful that continuation in service past the present age of superannuation be made topic to an evaluation of their efficiency.
The responses of the State Governments/UT Administrations, nevertheless, have been various. Whereas a few of them have agreed to the suggestions of excessive courts to reinforce the age of superannuation, others have both sought time for additional consideration or demurred, totally on the grounds that it might be an extra burden on the State exchequer or such enhancement in age would trigger heartburn amongst different staff within the service of the State. A number of states flagged the priority that such enhancement would have an effect on authentic aspirations of the younger entrants in judicial providers.
Solely seven states—Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal – consented to enhancing the age of judicial officers’ retirement to 62 years and, accordingly, the highest court docket requested them to amend judicial officers’ service.
States opposing the proposal contended that different staff of the state would declare parity with members of the judicial service and that it might put extra burden on them.
Nevertheless, in its September 1 order, the highest court docket termed their apprehensions as “wholly extraneous” and “misplaced”, saying …”if skilled members of the judicial cadre are permitted to proceed in service until the age of 62, the extra burden of bearing such post-retiral dues would stand correspondingly postponed.”
