The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the State Government over the issue of refusal to enhance the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 61 years.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the challenge to the administrative order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which refused to increase the retirement age of judicial officers in the state from 60 to 61 years. The Petition has been filed by the MP Judges Association.

The Association contends that this was in clear violation of the Supreme Court’s directions on May 26. The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih had clarified that there was no impediment in raising the retirement age of District Judges to 61 years and asked the Madhya Pradesh High Court to take an administrative decision on enhancing the retirement age within 3 months.

In the plea filed by the petitioner association, it is stated that the copy of the administrative order has not been provided and the decision was communicated orally through the Registrar General of the MP High Court.

“It is also pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble High Court has even refused to provide a copy of its decision dt.22.08.2025 taken on administrative side to the petitioner. The office bearer of the Petitioner association was orally informed by the Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh that their plea for enhancement of age of superannuation has been kept in abeyance / rejected on the newly discovered ground that at present there is no requirement do so.”

The plea highlights that such conduct amounted to ‘step-motherly treatment’

“It is submitted that “the negative attitude adopted by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh”, in this matter of legitimate expectation of the thousands of Judicial officers serving in the State of Madhya Pradesh, is clear cut example of the “step motherly treatment” meted out to the judicial officers of the Sub-ordinate Judiciary at the hand of their own Guardian Court (The Hon’ble High Court).”

Senior Advocate Ajit S Bhasme, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that they were only seeking enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 61 years and not 62 years. This, he emphasised, was at parity with the relief given to Telangana district judges.

Notably, in the May 26 order, the Court relied on its earlier order in an application filed by the Telangana State Government in the All India Judges Association Case. Here, the Telangana High Court had sought clarification on a similar issue of increasing the retirement age of district judges to 61 years. The Court allowed it.

Considering the same, the bench issued notice in the matter.

The matter will now be heard after 2 weeks.

The plea was filed with the assistance of AOR Sanjay Kumar Dubey.

Counsel for the petitioners: Ajit S. Bhasme, Sr. advocate; Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR; Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Adv; Ms. Shuchi Singh, Adv; Ujjwal Kumar Dubey, Adv; Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv; Devendra Kumar Shukla, Adv; Ms. Shivani Mishra, Adv

Case Details: MADHYA PRADESH JUDGES ASSOCIATION Versus THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.| W.P.(C) No. 000986 / 2025

Source https://www.livelaw.in/