38.6c New Delhi, India, Wednesday, April 17, 2024

SC Issues Notice In Plea Seeking Direction To Mp Gov And Hc For Increase In Retirement Age Of Subordinate Judges From 60 To 62 [READ ORDER]

By Rhea Banerjee      25 September, 2020 04:36 PM      0 Comments

The Supreme Court on 22nd September, Tuesday issued a notice in a plea asking for issuance of directions to the Madhya Pradesh State government as well as the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to increase the superannuation of members of Subordinate Judiciary to 62 years. 

The bench comprised of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justice AS Bopanna, and Justice V Ramasubramanian took up the plea of hearing the case of States’ failure on the part of the authorities to increase the retirement age as has been done for MP State government employees had an unexpected outcome “hostile discrimination vis-à-vis State government employees who are also governed by the same service rules.” The plea further pursues alteration of paragraphs 26 and 40 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. which held that the superannuation age of Judicial officers couldn’t be raised to 62 years. 

The senior Advocate Vikas Singh along with Advocate Samir Malik appeared on behalf of the petitioners, the Madhya Pradesh Judges Association. The main contention of the plea was that if the state government is availing the benefit of superannuation till the age of 62 years, whereas the retirement age of Judges was at 60 and thus this can be regarded as a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 

The contention made by the petitioner stated that notification dated March 31, 2018, as issued by the state government, the retirement age was mentioned as 60 years which was later on enhanced to 62 years vide the said notification. Further, it was also averred that promulgation of Ordinance, the superannuation age of Judges of Subordinate Judiciary will be 60 years whereas the Subordinate Employees of District Courts Class III and IV would be retiring at age of 62 years. 

In this view, the plea makes it evident that the MP government has deprived the subordinate Judicial officers of State of MP of availing the benefit of an increase in the superannuation age and thereby discriminated the Judicial officers of MP as all the other state officers are enjoying the superannuation age of 62 years whereas the Judicial officer needs to retire at age of 60. 

As they were aggrieved by this discrimination, an association made a representation to the government which was rejected by the State government, and further it was contended by the government that it was their exclusive power to whether grant the superannuation or not. 

The plea was presented by Advocate Yunus Malik and the applicant prays that the Court should issue directions for increasing the superannuation age of the Subordinate Judicial Officers to 62 years as it has been done for the State government employees and subsequently amended Rule 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Service Rules, 2017 and Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1994. 



Share this article:

Leave a feedback about this

Trending Judiciary
To uphold presumption of guilt under Section 29 POCSO Act, foundational facts must be proved, reiterates Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court reiterates that to uphold the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the prosecution must prove the ‘foundational facts’ beyond reasonable doubt.

16 April, 2024 12:54 PM
Trending Judiciary
Baba Ramdev, Acharya Balkrishna offer to make public apology in SC for misleading advertisements

Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna offer public apology in SC for misleading ads, court deliberates acceptance.

16 April, 2024 01:57 PM


Trending Business
SC sets aside judgment upholding arbitral award against DMRC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court overturns arbitral award favoring Reliance Infrastructure subsidiary against DMRC, citing grave miscarriage of justice.

11 April, 2024 11:43 AM
Trending Political NEWS
Delhi HC rejects third plea for Arvind Kejriwal's removal as Delhi CM, blasts petitioner for abuse of judicial process [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court dismisses the third PIL plea before it seeking Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal’s removal as Chief Minister of Delhi, imposes Rs. 50,000 cost on petitioner.

11 April, 2024 03:29 PM
Trending Judiciary
Use of social media to interfere with administration of justice needs serious consideration: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court warns against social media misuse in legal matters, cautions against prejudicial posts interfering with justice.

11 April, 2024 05:44 PM
Trending Legal Insiders
Two-day conference on April 13-14 on Technology and Dialogue between SC and Singapore

Explore AI's role in law at the India-Singapore Supreme Court conference on technology, enhancing judicial processes and access to justice, April 13-14, 2024.

12 April, 2024 06:16 PM


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email