MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of circular dated April 20, 2015 issued by Registrar, Cooperative Societies, J&K Jammu stating that the age of retirement of the employees is 58 years. Further prayer has been made for quashing of the orders dated March 30, 2019 providing that the petitioners shall retire w.e.f April 30, 2019, on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years. Further prayer has been made to allow the petitioners to continue till the age of 60 years as provided in the office order dated September 12, 2015 issued by the General Secretary, J&K Cooperative Union Limited, Jammu.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had been working in the office of respondent No.2 i.e., The Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Union Ltd., Jammu. They are governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1960 Act"). The age of retirement therein has been provided as 58 years. It was in terms of the age of retirement in the government services. Vide notification dated June 5, 2014 the State amended the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations Volume-I in Article 226(1). From June 1, 2014 the age of retirement was increased to 60 years. Hence, the petitioners were entitled to the same benefit. They should be allowed to continue till the age of 60 years as the matter pertaining to increase in age of retirement is pending consideration with the State Government. In support of his arguments, reference was made to two earlier orders passed by this Court on 6/2/2018 in SWP No.197/2016 titled as Joginder Singh and ors. Vs. State of J&K and ors., and dtd. 25/2/2019 passed in SWP No.327/2019 titled as Farooq Ahmad Naik Vs. State of J&K and ors.

(3.) Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners may be allowed to work and they will not draw any salary till such time the Government takes a decision regarding increase of their age. If final decision of the State is in favor of the petitioners they may be given the salary otherwise they will not claim the same.