DATE: 26/08/2025
COURT: High Court of Jammu, Kashmir and
Ladakh
BENCH: Justice Shahzad Azeem and Justice
Sindhu Sharma
FACTS:
The appellants, Mohammad Yousuf Mir and
Abdul Majid Doshaba, were employees of the Cooperative Societies in Jammu and
Kashmir, serving as Assistant Manager and Manager, respectively. As per the
governing service rules contained in SRO 233 of 1988, employees of Cooperative
Societies were required to retire upon attaining the age of 58 years. The
appellants, however, sought the benefit of SRO 164 of 2014, which had enhanced
the retirement age of government employees in other departments from 58 to 60
years. They also relied on a communication dated 01.08.2019 from the Registrar
of Cooperative Societies recommending enhancement of the retirement age for
Cooperative Society employees to 60 years and on draft amendment rules to the
same effect.
Both appellants approached the Writ Court
after being retired at the age of 58, contending that they were entitled to
continue till 60 years in line with the government employees of other
departments. The Writ Court, however, dismissed their petitions, holding that
since their service conditions were governed strictly by SRO 233 of 1988, which
remained unamended, the petitioners could not claim parity with government
employees under SRO 164 of 2014. The appellants thereafter filed intra-court
appeals challenging the dismissal orders.
ISSUES:
The primary issue before the Court was
whether the employees of Cooperative Societies, whose service conditions are
governed under SRO 233 of 1988, could claim entitlement to an enhanced
retirement age of 60 years based merely on recommendations, draft amendment
rules, or parity with government employees under SRO 164 of 2014, without any
formal amendment to the statutory rules.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Court dismissed both appeals, holding
that the appellants were bound by SRO 233 of 1988, which fixed the retirement
age at 58 years. It concluded that the retirement age could only be altered
through formal statutory amendment and not on the basis of recommendations,
proposals, or interim communications. Consequently, neither of the appellants
was entitled to salary or service benefits beyond 58 years, even if they had
worked beyond that age under interim orders.
The Court reasoned that the service
conditions of Cooperative Society employees are statutory in nature, being
governed by SRO 233 of 1988, framed under the Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative
Societies Act, 1960, and saved by the subsequent Act of 1989. Under Rule 13(1)
of SRO 233, the retirement age was explicitly fixed at 58 years, and the rules
conferred no power on the respondents to alter this age through executive
recommendations or departmental communications. Since SRO 164 of 2014 applied
specifically to government employees of other departments, it could not be
extended to Cooperative Society employees in the absence of a corresponding
statutory amendment to their governing rules. Thus, recommendations or draft
amendments prepared by the Registrar carried no legal force until formally
notified through statutory procedure.
The Court further emphasized that although
one of the appellants, Mohammad Yousuf Mir, had continued in service beyond 58
years under interim orders of the Writ Court, such continuation was explicitly
“at his own risk and responsibility.” Since statutory rules barred service
beyond 58 years, the appellant could not claim salary for this extended period
of work. Similarly, Abdul Majid Doshaba, who retired at 58 and did not work
beyond that age, had no claim to extension of service or benefits. The Court underscored
that any change in service conditions, including retirement age, must flow
directly from valid statutory amendment rather than from administrative
proposals or judicial sympathy. In this light, the appeals lacked merit and
were accordingly dismissed.
ANALYSIS:
The judgment underscores the principle that
service conditions are strictly governed by statutory rules and cannot be
altered through administrative recommendations, proposals, or judicial
intervention in the absence of formal amendment. By refusing to extend the
benefit of SRO 164 of 2014 to employees of Cooperative Societies, the Court
reaffirmed the legal distinction between government employees and employees of
autonomous or statutory bodies. This reinforces the doctrine that parity in
service benefits must stem from express statutory provisions rather than
assumptions of equivalence. The Court’s approach reflects a strict adherence to
the rule of law, preventing the dilution of statutory mandates through informal
executive actions or expectations of uniformity.
From a broader perspective, the ruling
highlights the limitations of judicial power in service jurisprudence,
emphasizing that courts cannot legislate or create rights absent statutory
backing. While the appellants attempted to rely on draft amendments and
recommendations as indicative of policy intent, the Court clarified that such
documents are only preparatory in nature and lack binding effect until formally
enacted. This decision not only preserves the sanctity of statutory service
rules but also signals caution against employees continuing in service under
interim relief, since such extensions are conditional and non-binding. Overall,
the case reaffirms that in matters of employment, statutory certainty prevails
over administrative discretion or equitable considerations.
info@adhwaitha.com