Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 4294
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NARENDRA PRASAD, CJ, MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J
MADHYA PRADESH JUDGES ASSOCIATION – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. – Respondent
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 819/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ajit S. Bhasme, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Adv., Ms. Shuchi Singh, Adv., Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Adv., Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv., Ms. Shivani Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR, Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, DAG, Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Saaransh Shukla, Adv.
The court permitted enhancement of judicial officers' retirement age to 61 years, aligning with state employees, subject to rule amendments.
Headnote:This case analyzes the application for a writ of mandamus to enhance the age of superannuation for judicial officers. The Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the enhancement request, citing a prior Supreme Court ruling. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no impediment for the state to permit the increase to 61 years, advising prompt administrative action. The court ruled, 'the writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.'
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for enhancing retirement age (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court observes facilitation for rule amendment (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. ruling & disposition of the petition (Para 8 , 9) |
Signa ture No t Ve rifi ed UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following Digital ly s igne d b y O R D E R NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2025.06.04
14:17:02 IST Reason:
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to issue or direct the respondents to increase the age of superannuation of the members of the subordinate judicial officers to 62 years in the State of MP as has been done for the State Government employees and consequently amend the Rule 16 of the “Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017” and Rule 14 of “The Madhya Pradesh Judcial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (Amended)”.
(ii) Pass such further orders as may be deemed necessary in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
2. The Madhya Pradesh High Court on its administrative sidehas rejected the representation of the petitioner for enhancement of the age of retirement to 62 years in line with the age of retirement of the other employees of State Government which has been enhanced to 62 years. The representation of the petitioner came to be rejected by the High Court on the ground that an order passed by this Court dated 21.03.2002 in WP(C) No. 1022 of 1989 (All India Judges’ Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
does not permit it to be done.
3. It is relevant to note that insofar as the Telangana High Court is concerned, it had sought clarification from this Court with regard to the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 21.03.2002 (Supra) with respect to the age of superannuation of judicial officers working in the State of Telangana and to bring it in line with the age of superannuation of the employees of the State of Telangana.
4. This Court vide order dated 23.11.2023 passed in I.A. No.170936 of 2023 in WP(C) No. 643 of 2015 has passed the following order:-
“16. The High Court of Telangana has sought a clarification in respect of the age of superannuation of judicial officers working in the State of Telangana so as to bring it in line with Section 3 (1A) of the Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act 1984.
17. Mr Anish R Shah, counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of Telangana, submits that since the State government has increased the age of retirement of government officials from 60 to 61 years, the High Court may be permitted to make suitable amendments to the Telangana Stage Judicial Service Rules.
18. Permission as sought by the High Court of Telangana is granted and the IA is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (I).
19. We clarify that the IA which has been moved by the High Court of Telangana is being allowed since the increase in the age of retirement would be beneficial to the judicial officers.
20. The IA is disposed of.”
5. In that view of the matter, we do not find that there should be any impediment in permitting the respondents i.e. State of Madhya Pradesh and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to enhance the age of retirement of the judicial officers working in the State of Madhya Pradesh to 61 years.
6. We, therefore, clarify that if the rules framed by the State of Madhya Pradesh permits and if the High Court takes a decision to enhance the age of retirement of the judicial officers in the State of Madhya Pradesh to 61 years the same would be permissible.
7. Needless to state that in view of the aforesaid, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, on its administrative side, would take a decision at the earliest and in any case within a period of three months from today.
8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand di
