Court affirms only formal amendments to SRO 233 of 1988 can extend retirement age from 58 to 60; interim or departmental approvals lack binding force and employees servicing beyond 58 at personal risk aren’t entitled to salary.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/4/2023 of MOHAMMAD YOUSUF MIR Vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. (COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT) |
| CNR | JKHC010001862023 |
| Date of Registration | 20-01-2023 |
| Decision Date | 26-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismised |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh |
| Bench | HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM |
| Precedent Value | Binding on employees governed by SRO 233 of 1988 |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Service Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether retirement age can be extended by departmental recommendations or draft rules without formally amending SRO 233 of 1988? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The retirement age of Cooperative Society employees is governed exclusively by SRO 233 of 1988, made under Section 124 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and saved by Section 177 of the 1989 Act. Rule 13(1) mandates retirement at 58 years, and no provision delegates power to alter that age by internal communications, drafts or approvals. Hence, departmental recommendations or interim orders at personal risk do not confer a right to continue beyond 58 or to receive salary for any overstay. Only a statutory amendment to SRO 233 of 1988 can validly change the retirement age. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All Cooperative Society employees governed by SRO 233 of 1988 |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that only a formal amendment to SRO 233 of 1988 can alter retirement age from 58 to 60.
- Departmental approvals, inter-departmental communications or draft rules lack statutory backing and cannot override SRO 233.
- Service rendered beyond 58 years on interim orders “at own risk and responsibility” does not create entitlement to salary.
- Highlights the importance of checking whether a rule has been formally amended before relying on internal approvals.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Statutory Framework
- Section 124 of the 1960 Act and Section 176 of the 1989 Act empower rule-making for Cooperative Society employees.
- SRO 233 of 1988 was validly made and saved post-1989 repeal.
-
Rule 13(1) of SRO 233
- Mandates retirement at 58 years; no delegation for respondents to alter age.
-
Departmental Communications
- Draft amendments and recommendations lack force of law; cannot override SRO 233.
-
Interim Continuation
- Appellant allowed to continue on court order “at own risk”; statutory rules bar entitlement to pay beyond 58.
-
Conclusion
- Only statutory amendment to SRO 233 can validly extend retirement age; overstay service without such amendment yields no salary.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Appellants)
- Relied on Registrar’s approval dated 01.08.2019 recommending enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60.
- Pointed to SRO 164 of 2014 raising government employees’ retirement age to 60.
- Cited draft amendment rules as indication of intended change.
Respondents
- Service conditions governed solely by SRO 233 of 1988 prescribing retirement at 58.
- No statutory amendment undertaken; recommendations are non-binding.
- Interim continuation on court order at personal risk does not create salary entitlement.
Factual Background
Mohammad Yousuf Mir and Abdul Majid Doshaba were appointed to Cooperative Society services and rose to managerial posts. Both faced superannuation at 58 under SRO 233 of 1988 despite internal proposals to extend age to 60. They filed writ petitions which were dismissed, and their intra-court appeals were clubbed. One appellant continued service under interim order “at own risk” and claimed salary for the period; the other did not work beyond 58.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 124(2)(o-1)&(o-2) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and corresponding Section 176(xiv)&(xv) of the 1989 Act empower rule-making for service conditions.
- SRO 233 of 1988, enacted under these sections, prescribes retirement at 58 (Rule 13(1)).
- Section 177 of the 1989 Act saves existing rules made under the 1960 Act.
- No provision allows respondents to modify retirement age by circulars or drafts; only legislature can amend SRO 233.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
All judges concurred; no separate dissenting or differing opinion was expressed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed