Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar

Order Date: 20 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Mohammad Shafi Reshi, aged 62, former General Manager/Chief Executive Officer (GM/CEO) of Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Anantnag.
  • Respondents: Union Territory of J&K (through Commissioner/Secretary, Cooperative Department), Registrar, Cooperative Societies, J&K; Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Anantnag (through its Chairman and Board of Administrators); Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Anantnag; Manager, J&K Bank Limited, Branch Akingam; Reserve Bank of India, Urban Bank's Department.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of three orders dated 27 Feb 2025, 28 Feb 2025 and 05 Mar 2025 that relieved the petitioner from the post of GM/CEO and withheld retirement benefits.
  • Background: The petitioner joined UCB in 1987 as an Accounts Clerk and was appointed GM/CEO on 27 Apr 2015. He attained the statutory retirement age of 58 on 31 Mar 2021 under Rule 13(1) of SRO 233 1988. The Board of Management, by a resolution dated 21 Jan 2023 and an order dated 22 Feb 2023, granted him a three‑year extension up to 31 Mar 2026.
  • Intervening Events: On 09 Sep 2024, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, exercised powers under Section 29(4) of the Jammu & Kashmir Co‑Operative Societies Act 1989 and appointed a Board of Administrators in supersession of the Board of Management. The Board of Administrators reported alleged illegal functioning of the former Board and the unlawful extension beyond the age limit prescribed in SRO 233 1988 and SRO 236 2013. Consequently, the Registrar issued an order on 27 Feb 2025 directing immediate action, which was followed by Board of Administrators’ minutes on 28 Feb 2025 and a communication on 05 Mar 2025 relieving the petitioner and transferring the GM/CEO charge to the Deputy Registrar.
  • Petitioner’s Submissions: Alleged violation of natural justice (no hearing), claimed the extension was validly granted, relied on RBI Circular dated 25 Jun 2021 (para 5.4) requiring RBI prior approval for removal of a CEO, and challenged the Registrar’s competence under Section 29(4) to remove the elected Board.
  • Respondents’ Submissions: Asserted that retirement age of 58 is mandatory under Rule 13(1) of SRO 233 1988; any extension beyond that requires amendment of the statutory rule by the Government; the Board that granted the extension was unconstitutionally constituted under SRO 236 2013 and therefore its actions are void. Also argued that the Registrar validly exercised powers under Section 29(4) and that the dispute falls under Section 70 of the Act 1989, which bars court jurisdiction.
  • Statutory References Cited: SRO 233 1988 (service rules), SRO 236 2013 (Board selection), Section 29(4) of the Jammu & Kashmir Co‑Operative Societies Act 1989, Section 53A & 56 of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, RBI Notification dated 23 Mar 2021 (exemption for cooperative banks with deposits below Rs 100 crore), RBI Circular 25 Jun 2021, Section 5(b) of the Banking Regulation Act (definition of “Banking”), Section 124 of the J&K Cooperative Societies Act 1960, Section 177 of the Act 1989.
  • Key Judicial Precedents Cited: Ghulam Rasool Dar v. J&K State Cooperative Bank Ltd. (WP (C) 2163/2019) – cooperative banks not “State” under Art 12; Mohammad Yousuf Mir v. Union Territory of J&K (JKJ ONLINE 90274) – retirement age alteration requires amendment of SRO 233 1988; Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association (2026 SCC Online SC 1295) – Article 226 extends to any authority performing public functions; Binny Ltd. & Anr. v. V. Sadasivan (2005 SCC 657) – definition of public function; Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002 SCC 111) – test for State instrumentality.
  • Maintainability Issue: Respondents argued the petition was not maintainable as UCB is not a “State” under Art 12. The Court overruled this objection, relying on the broader interpretation of Article 226 that includes any body performing public functions, such as a cooperative bank engaged in banking activities under RBI supervision.
  • Merits: The Court examined Rule 13 of SRO 233 1988, confirming that retirement at 58 is mandatory and any extension must be effected by amendment of the statutory rule. The Board of Management’s resolution of 21 Jan 2023 and order of 22 Feb 2023 were held ultra vires and “non‑est” because they contravened SRO 236 2013 and lacked statutory authority. Consequently, the petitioner had no legal right to remain in service beyond 31 Mar 2021.
  • Conclusion on Orders: The relief orders dated 27 Feb 2025, 28 Feb 2025 and 05 Mar 2025 were deemed lawful as they merely recognized the legal position that the petitioner’s continued service was unauthorized.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed as bereft of merit. All connected civil matters are dismissed. Any interim directions that were in force as of the date of the order are vacated. Costs awarded to the respondents.

Topics: Legal Jurisdiction, Banking Service Rules, Cooperative Bank Governance