WP(C) No.3089/2024 Item No.13 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Pronounced on:05.06.2026 Uploaded on: 08.06.2026 WP(C) No.3089/2024 KULDEEP KUMAR BHAT ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Mudasir Bin Hassan , Advocate Vs. UT OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Faheem Nissar Shah, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged order bearing No.CSM/ Pul/161-68 dated 07.02.2022, issued by respondent No.3, whereby his representation for release of salary and other dues has been rejected. The petitioner has also sought a direction upon the respondents to pay him the salary from 1st July, 2020 to 31st May, 2021 along with interest. 2) As per case of the petitioner, he was an employee of the respondent Cooperative Society with his place of posting at Pulwama. It has been submitted that the petitioner attained age of 58 years on 31.05.2019 and if age of superannuation WP(C) No.3089/2024 is taken as 58 years, then the petitioner was to retire on the said date but, vide order dated 27.05.2019, issued by respondent No,2 the services of the petitioner were extended by two years. In pursuance of the said order, respondent No.4 issued order dated 27.05.2019, whereby the petitioner was granted two years extension in his service with effect from 01.06.2019. 3) On the strength of aforesaid orders, the petitioner continued to discharge his functions till he attained age of 60 years i.e. upto 31.05.2021. However, his salary with effect from 1st July, 2020 to 31st May, 2021, amounting to Rs.6,37,506/, has been withheld by the respondents without assigning any reason. It has been submitted that the respondents have also withheld half of the retiral benefits of the petitioner. 4) According to the petitioner, he had filed a writ petition bearing WP(C) No.2534/2021 seeking release of his withheld salary and retiral benefits, which was disposed of by this Court on 07.12.2021 with the direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said direction, the petitioner made a representation which was considered and rejected by the respondents in WP(C) No.3089/2024 terms of impugned order dated 07.02.2022, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 5) The respondents, in their reply to the writ petition, have contended that the Government vide SRO 233 of 1988 dated 8th July, 1988, notified the service rules for the employees of the Cooperative Societies and as per these rules, retirement age of the employees of the Cooperative Societies has been fixed as 58 years. It has been submitted that Circular Instruction dated 11.07.200 came to be issued which clarified that there is no ambiguity with regard to applicability of SRO 233 of 1988 to the employees of the Cooperative Societies specifically concerning the retirement age of 58 years. It has been submitted that as per judgment dated 25.03.2019 delivered by this Court in SWP No.327/2019, it has been held that the retirement age governed by the provisions of the relevant service rules cannot be altered to the benefit of the employee. 6) Heard and considered. 7) So far as claim of the petitioner that he has discharged his duties with the respondents upto 31st May, 2021, when he attained age of 60 years, is concerned, the same is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner attained age of 58 years on 31.05.2019 and thereafter he has been WP(C) No.3089/2024 paid salary upto 30th June, 2020. However, his salary with effect from 1st July, 2020 to 31st May, 2021, has not been released nor half of his retiral benefits have been released in his favour. 8) The respondents, in order to justify their aforesaid action, have relied upon SRO 233 dated 8th July, 1988, and Circular Instructions dated 11.07.2020. They have contended that age of superannuation of the employees of the Cooperative Societies is 58 years and not 60 years, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to salary after he had attained age of 58 years. It is for this reason that the respondents have withheld the salary of the petitioner with effect from 1st July, 2020 besides withholding half of his retiral benefits because he had drawn salary for some time even after reaching age of 58 years. 9) The determination of the issue whether the age of superannuation of the employees of the respondent Cooperative Society is 58 years or 60 years, is not relevant for the purpose of resolving the present controversy because in the instant case, respondent No.2 has, vide his order dated 27.05.2019, specifically granted extension in service of the petitioner by two years, pursuant whereto, respondent No.4 has issued another order on the same date granting WP(C) No.3089/2024 extension of two years in service of the petitioner. Thus, it is not a case where the petitioner has served the respondent Cooperative Society beyond his age of superannuation without any lawful authority but it is a case where the petitioner has been granted extension in his service by the respondents. Thus, neither SRO 233 of 1988 nor Circular Instruction dated 11.07.2020 are applicable to the case of the petitioner. Once the petitioner has been granted extension in his service, he is entitled to draw salary uptill the date he has worked with the respondents. 10) For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.02.2022, issued by respondent No.3, is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the withheld salary of the petitioner with effect from 1st July, 2020 to 31st May, 2021. They shall also release the unpaid retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from today, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its final realization. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Srinagar, 05.06.2026 “Bhat Altaf-Secretary” Whether the ORDER is reportable: Yes/No