With 14 states agreeing to raise the retirement age of district judicial officers from 60 to 62 years, the Supreme Court on Monday expressed satisfaction over the development but refused to list for urgent hearing petitions filed by judges who had recently retired or were on the verge of retirement.Noting that 14 states had agreed to raise the retirement age to 62 years, a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana said, “We are hopeful that others will also follow.”However, it refused to list individual pleas of judges demitting office after attaining the age of 60 years, saying, “This pertains to the persuasive jurisdiction of this court. The issue is between the Supreme Court and the states.”As senior advocate Ranjit Kumar mentioned the plea for listing saying judicial officers were retiring every day, the CJI disapproved of judicial officers individually moving the top court on the issue.As almost 24 per cent of the total sanctioned strength of 30,868 judges in Subordinate Courts across India remains vacant, the Supreme Court had last month asked seven states, which agreed to raise the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 62 years, to amend the service rules to reflect the change.“The States which have consented to the enhancement of age of the Judicial Officers, namely, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, are directed to amend the service rules and enhance the age of superannuation in the judicial service to 62 years, subject to the suitability assessment of the concerned Judicial Officer, on their attainment of the age of 60 years, by the High Court. Such amendments shall be carried out as early as possible, preferably within two months,” it had said.The had ordered that “Pending amendment of the rules, no judicial officer in the aforesaid States who has attained the age of 60 years shall superannuate until he attains the age of 62 years, subject to an assessment of his suitability and performance by the High Court concerned.“Judicial officers in the aforesaid States who have superannuated on or after 31.03.2026 shall be given an option to re-join the judicial office, if they have not already obtained subsequent employment or has been appointed to any other office of profit under the Union Government or any State Government,” the top court had said in its September 1 order.Even as the Punjab and Haryana High Court favoured enhancing the retirement age of judicial officers in Punjab and Haryana from 60 years to 62 years, the two states have opposed any such move.“The existing retirement age of 60 years is legally valid and does not warrant alteration in the state at this stage,” the Punjab Government told the Supreme Court. The Haryana Government too opposed the idea, saying, “The State Government reiterated its stand to not raise the age of judicial officers beyond 60 years.”Assam, Bihar, Keralam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand too have opposed the move to enhance the age of retirement of judicial officers to 62 years. While several states said they were “actively” considering the proposal, some of them were yet to spell out their respective stand.It had asked government of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Keralam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana, Tripura, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, NCT of Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir and Puducherry to reconsider their decision on enhancing retirement age of judicial officers.