{"id":9104,"date":"2026-08-05T23:37:44","date_gmt":"2026-08-05T23:37:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=9104"},"modified":"2026-08-05T23:37:44","modified_gmt":"2026-08-05T23:37:44","slug":"decide-on-raising-retirement-age-of-judges-by-sept-2-sc-to-states-india-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=9104","title":{"rendered":"Decide on raising retirement age of judges by Sept 2: SC to states | India News"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"Decide<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
The Supreme Court requested high courts to pass appropriate full-court resolutions in favour of increasing the age of superannuation of judicial officers from 60 to 62 years<\/span><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

NEW DELHI: Attempting to bring judicial officers\u2019 retirement age on a par with that for HC judges, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked states to decide by Sept 2 on increasing the superannuation age of trial court judges from 60 to 62 years while brushing aside pleas of financial constraints and the disparity it would create vis-a-vis government employees.In the early 1990s, the Supreme Court had increased through a judgment the retirement age of judicial officers across India from 58 to 60 years. This time, however, a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said that instead of a judicial ruling, it would be better if state governments made the decision on their own. The strength of trial court judges has doubled since 1992, from around 10,000 to over 20,000 at present. The number of HC judges has increased from 568 in 1992 to 1,114 now.A few states have increased the age of retirement for judicial officers from 60 to 61, akin to similar benefits for government employees. Some states argued that increasing the age of superannuation of judicial officers to 62 years would create disparity and cause discontent among government employees, who too would demand identical benefits, entailing a huge financial burden for the government.But the bench rejected both these objections. It said that when a judicial officer retires, the government pays them a lump-sum amount and pension, which is more than half of their last-drawn salary. On filling the vacancy, the government pays a salary to the new appointee. Retaining experienced and seasoned judicial officers would be financially beneficial for the state and judiciary, it said.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Share your thoughts in the comments<\/p>\n<\/div>\n