SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by former Urban Cooperative Bank (UCB), Anantnag General Manager and Chief Executive Officer Mohammad Shafi Reshi, holding that his continuation in service beyond the statutory retirement age of 58 years had no legal sanction and that the bank’s decision to relieve him from service was valid.
In a judgment delivered on July 20, 2026, Justice Shahzad Azeem upheld the orders dated February 27, February 28 and March 5, 2025, by which Reshi was relieved as GM/CEO and his retirement benefits were withheld. The court ruled that the three-year extension granted to him by the bank’s Board of Management was beyond its legal competence and therefore “non-est in the eyes of law.”
Reshi had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the three orders, arguing that he had been prematurely removed before the expiry of his extended tenure ending on March 31, 2026. He also contended that the action violated principles of natural justice as he had not been given an opportunity of hearing.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Altaf Haqani, assisted by advocates Shakir Haqani and Asif Ahmad Wani.
The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Registrar Cooperative Societies, Board of Administrators of the Urban Cooperative Bank and other official respondents were represented by Government Advocate Faheem Nisar Shah. N. A. Dendru appeared for J&K Bank, while Nitin Parihar represented the Reserve Bank of India.
Mohammad Shafi Reshi joined the Urban Cooperative Bank, Anantnag in 1987 as an Accounts Clerk and was promoted as General Manager/Chief Executive Officer in 2015. Although he attained the statutory retirement age of 58 years on March 31, 2021, the bank’s Board of Management passed a resolution in January 2023 granting him a three-year extension till March 31, 2026.
Subsequently, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies appointed a Board of Administrators in September 2024 after superseding the elected Board of Management. Acting on the administrators’ report that the extension violated statutory rules, the Registrar directed action against Reshi, leading to his removal in March 2025.
Reshi argued that the Board of Management had lawfully granted the extension, that the Registrar lacked authority to interfere, and that prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India was mandatory before removing the CEO.
The respondents countered that the retirement age prescribed under SRO 233 of 1988 was 58 years and that only the Government could alter it through statutory amendment. They also submitted that the Board which granted the extension had itself been constituted contrary to law.
Before examining the merits, the High Court considered an objection that a writ petition could not be maintained against the Urban Cooperative Bank because it was not a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Rejecting the objection, the court held that although the cooperative bank may not qualify as a State instrumentality, it performs public functions by accepting public deposits and carrying on banking business under Reserve Bank of India regulation.
The judgment observed: “The expression ‘any person or authority’ in Article 226 is not limited to statutory authorities or State instrumentalities; it extends to any person or body performing a public duty.”
The court distinguished an earlier judgment involving the J&K State Cooperative Bank by holding that Reshi’s service conditions were governed by statutory rules having the force of law rather than merely by contractual bye-laws.
On the merits, the court held that Rule 13 of SRO 233 of 1988 clearly fixes the retirement age of employees of cooperative societies at 58 years, and any enhancement can only be made by the Government through amendment of the statutory rules.
Justice Azeem held: “Such extension was beyond the competence of the Board of Management and is non-est in the eyes of law. Consequently, the Petitioner had no legal right to continue in service after 31 March 2021.”
The court further observed: “The relieving of the Petitioner is nothing but a recognition of the legal position that his continuance beyond the age of 58 years was without authority of law.”
While Reshi also challenged the Registrar’s decision to supersede the Board of Management, the court declined to examine that issue, holding that disputes relating to the constitution and management of a cooperative society must be decided under Section 70 of the Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Societies Act, 1989, which provides a separate statutory mechanism.
Concluding that there was “no fault, either on facts or law” in the respondents’ action, the High Court dismissed the writ petition along with connected applications and vacated all interim directions.
