JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged Circular No. RCS/Accounts/Adm./G- 107/386-1531 dated 11.07.2020 to the extent it provides for retirement of employees of Jammu Cooperative Wholesale Limited (Super Bazaar), Jammu at the age of 58 years instead of 60 years and to the extent it provides for recovery of amount/salary drawn by the petitioner beyond 58 years of age along with interest. The petitioner has also sought a direction upon the respondents to allow him to continue in service until he attains the age of 60 years; with a further direction to release the salary, which according to the petitioner has been withheld w.e.f., July, 2020.

02. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as Helper in the Jammu Cooperative, Wholesale Limited (Super Bazaar), Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as “respondent-Cooperative Society”) and at the time of filing of the writ petition, he was serving on the post of Senior Salesman. It has been submitted that the respondent- Cooperative Society framed its bye laws pursuant to the approval of Board of Administrators vide resolution dated 28.05.2017, which was subsequently registered and recommended by Registrar Cooperative Societies vide his communication dated 25.05.2017 whereafter the State Government vide order bearing No. 20 Coop of 2017 dated 31.05.2017 granted sanction to the enhancement of age of retirement of the employees of the respondent-Cooperative Society from existing 58 years to 60 years.

03. It is being claimed that on the basis of the aforesaid order dated 31.05.2017, many employees including the petitioner continued to serve beyond 58 years of age and they were expecting their superannuation at the age of 60 years. However, the respondents issued the impugned Circular dated 11.07.2020 whereby all Cooperative Societies including the respondent-Cooperative Society was directed to retire all employees at the age of 58 years and to effect recovery of the amount of salary drawn beyond 58 years of age along with interest.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing has submitted that in view of the settled position of law that employees of Cooperative Society have to retire at the age of 58 years, the petitioner does not press for the challenge to impugned Circular to the extent it provides for retirement of employees at the age of 58 years but is confining the challenge to the said Circular to the extent it directs recovery of salary drawn by the petitioner for the period he has served with the respondent-Cooperative Society beyond the age of 58 years.

05. In view of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the grounds urged by the petitioner for assailing the impugned Circular to the extent it provides for retirement of employees of respondent-Cooperative Society at the age of 58 years are not being narrated herein. So far as the said Circular provides for recovery of amount drawn as salary by the petitioner after continuing in service beyond 58 years of age is concerned, it has been contended that it is settled position of law that no recovery can be effected from an employee after his retirement unless it is shown that he has drawn emoluments on the basis of any fraud.

06. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing objections thereto, wherein it has been submitted that the petitioner has furnished an affidavit accepting his age of retirement as 58 years and in this regard, he has furnished an undertaking. It has been further submitted that as per Rule 13(1) of SRO 233 of 1988 which governs the age of retirement of employees of respondent-Cooperative Society, the petitioner had to retire on attaining the age of 58 years but he continued to serve beyond the said age, therefore, he is not entitled to salary which he has drawn beyond the period of date of his retirement.

07. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the ca