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.”While the Himachal Pradesh High Court favoured enhancing the age of retirement of judicial officers from 60 years to 62 years, the state government’s stand was not clear as it has not filed any affidavit on the contentious issue so far.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.The Bench, however, in its September 1 order asked the non-consenting states to reconsider their stand and posted the matter for hearing on October 1.However, there was consensus among high courts on enhancing the age of superannuation of judicial officers from 60 years to 62 years even as some high courts recommended that continuation in service beyond the existing age of superannuation be made subject to an assessment of their performance.The responses of the State Governments/UT Administrations, however, were varied. While some of them have agreed to the recommendations of high courts to enhance the age of superannuation, others have either sought time for further consideration or demurred, primarily on the grounds that it would be an additional burden on the State exchequer or such enhancement in age would cause heartburn amongst other employees in the service of the State. Several states flagged the concern that such enhancement would affect legitimate aspirations of the young entrants in judicial services.Only seven states—Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal – consented to enhancing the age of judicial officers’ retirement to 62 years and, accordingly, the top court asked them to amend judicial officers’ service.States opposing the proposal contended that other employees of the state would claim parity with members of the judicial service and that it would put additional burden on them.However, in its September 1 order, the top court termed their apprehensions as “wholly extraneous” and “misplaced”, saying …”if experienced members of the judicial cadre are permitted to continue in service till the age of 62, the additional burden of bearing such post-retiral dues would stand correspondingly postponed.”