Urban Cooperative Bank Anantnag Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction, But GM’s Extension Beyond 58 Was Void: J&K High Court

The J&K and Ladakh High Court overruled a maintainability objection but dismissed the GM/CEO’s writ, holding the Board of Management had no statutory power to extend service beyond 58 years under SRO 233 of 1988.

Justice Shahzad Azeem, sitting singly at the Srinagar Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, dismissed a writ petition filed by Mohammad Shafi Reshi, the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Anantnag (UCB, Anantnag), who challenged orders dated 27 February, 28 February and 05 March 2025 relieving him from service and withholding his retirement benefits. While the Court rejected the respondents’ argument that no writ lay against the bank at all, it held that the three-year extension granted to Reshi beyond the statutory retirement age of 58 years was granted without any authority of law and was therefore non-est. His continuance from 1 April 2021 onwards had no legal basis, making the relieval orders legally unassailable.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Reshi joined the UCB, Anantnag in 1987 as an Accounts Clerk and was appointed GM/CEO by order dated 27 April 2015. He attained the age of 58 years — the retirement age stipulated under Rule 13(1) of SRO 233 of 1988 — on 31 March 2021. Despite that, the Board of Management of the bank passed a unanimous resolution on 21 January 2023, followed by a formal order dated 22 February 2023, purporting to grant him a three-year extension from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2026.

In September 2024, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies exercised powers under Section 29(4) of the Jammu and Kashmir Co-Operative Societies Act, 1989, and appointed a Board of Administrators in supersession of the Board of Management. The Board of Administrators subsequently reported illegal functioning of the erstwhile Board of Management, including the grant of Reshi’s extension beyond the prescribed superannuation age. On that basis, the Registrar, by order dated 27 February 2025, advised the Chairman of the Board of Administrators to take immediate action against Reshi. Minutes dated 28 February 2025 and a communication dated 05 March 2025 followed, by which Reshi was relieved with immediate effect and charge of GM/CEO was handed to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Anantnag.

Reshi filed WP (C) No. 823/2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of all three orders, contending he had been prematurely relieved before his extended tenure expired.

The Maintainability Objection and the Court’s Reasoning

Respondents 1 to 5 raised a preliminary objection: the UCB, Anantnag is not a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and the dispute being purely contractual or service-related, no writ lay against it. They relied on a coordinate bench decision of this Court in Ghulam Rasool Dar v. J&K State Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Anr. (WP (C) No. 2163/2019), which had dismissed a similar writ on identical maintainability grounds, holding the bank to be neither State nor an instrumentality of State and its service rules to be contractual in nature.

Justice Azeem overruled the objection. The Court drew on the Supreme Court’s observations in Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association and Ors., 2026 SCC Online SC 1295, that the focus in Article 226 matters has shifted from the formal character of the body to the nature of the function performed and the effect of the impugned action on legally protected rights. The expression “any person or authority” in Article 226 “has consistently received a wider and more liberal interpretation.”

The Court identified that the UCB, Anantnag accepts public deposits, advances loans and operates under RBI regulatory oversight. Referring to the test in Binny Ltd. & Anr. v. V. Sadasivan & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 657, the Court held that a body performing a “public function” is one that seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public and is accepted by the public as having authority to do so. Handling public deposits, protecting depositors and sustaining local credit support placed the bank squarely within that category.

The RBI’s regulatory oversight further reinforced this. The UCB, Anantnag is also subject to overall government supervision under Section 32-A of the Act of 1989, as amended in 2018. Taken together, these factors meant the bank constituted “any person or authority” performing public duties and was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, even if it fell outside Article 12.

Distinguishing Ghulam Rasool Dar

The Court was careful to confine the earlier coordinate bench ruling to its facts rather than overrule it. In Ghulam Rasool Dar, the petitioner had challenged an order treating his suspension period as leave after superannuation. The service conditions were governed solely by Bye-Laws of the Cooperative Bank, which the Court had held to be contractual and devoid of statutory force. That rendered the service dispute non-justiciable in writ.

The present case was different in a material respect. Reshi’s service conditions, including his retirement age and any possible extension, were governed by SRO 233 of 1988 — statutory rules framed by the Government under Section 124 of the J&K Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and saved by Section 177 of the Act of 1989. Statutory rules have the force of law. Enforcement of statutory service conditions, the Court held, carries a public and statutory element and is amenable to judicial review under Article 226 against the bank as “any authority or person” performing public functions, even if the bank is not State or an instrumentality of State.

Why the Extension Was Void

Having admitted the petition to merits, the Court turned to whether the extension itself had any legal basis. Rule 13(1) of SRO 233 of 1988 provides that a person appointed to service shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years. The Court held that any extension beyond 58 years is permissible only through a Government amendment to SRO 233 of 1988 itself — the Board of Management of a cooperative bank has no power to grant such an extension.

This position was affirmed by the Division Bench of the same Court in Mohammad Yousuf Mir & Anr. v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors., JKJ ONLINE 90274, which held that the retirement age of cooperative society employees can be altered only by suitable amendment to SRO 233 of 1988, and that work done beyond 58 years at personal risk and responsibility does not entitle an employee to salary for the overstay period.

Applying those principles, the Court found that the Board of Management’s resolution of 21 January 2023 and formal order of 22 February 2023 purporting to grant a three-year extension were beyond the competence of the Board entirely. The extension was non-est in the eyes of law. Consequently, Reshi had no legal right to continue in service after 31 March 2021, the date on which he turned 58.

Petitioner’s Other Arguments

Reshi had pressed two additional arguments. First, he relied on paragraph 5.4 of an RBI Circular dated 25 June 2021, arguing that prior RBI approval was mandatory before removal of a CEO of a cooperative bank. The RBI, however, submitted that it had issued a notification dated 23 March 2021 under Sections 53A and 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, exempting primary cooperative banks with deposits below Rs. 100 crores from the relevant provisions, namely Section 35B(i)(b) and Section 56. Since the UCB, Anantnag held deposits of Rs. 58,42,80,746, it fell within the exempted category and no prior RBI approval was needed.

Second, Reshi questioned the Registrar’s authority to supersede the Board of Management under Section 29(4) of the Act of 1989 and appoint a Board of Administrators in its place. He contended that power under Section 29(4) could only be exercised where a committee had ceased to hold office and no new committee had been constituted, and that the elected Board of Management continued to exercise control despite ongoing litigation. The Court declined to go into this question. Section 70 of the Act of 1989, which falls in the chapter dealing with settlement of disputes, provides in unequivocal terms that any dispute touching the constitution or management of a Cooperative Society shall be referred to the Registrar, and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such disputes. The question of the Board of Administrators’ competence fell squarely within that provision and could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

Outcome

Justice Azeem dismissed the writ petition as bereft of merit. The Court found no fault, either on facts or in law, in the respondents’ action of relieving Reshi. The relieval orders of 27 February, 28 February and 05 March 2025 were held to be a recognition of the legal position that Reshi’s continuance beyond 58 years was without authority of law. All connected applications were dismissed and all interim directions, if any subsisting as on the date of judgment, were vacated. The judgment was approved for reporting.