JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who was denied extension of service beyond 58 years by the high Court by order dated 26.05.2004 He completed 60 years in June, 2006. The order of the High Court dated 26.05.2004 was challenged by the petitioner after he completed 60 years of age i.e. after about three years from the date of the impugned order, hence learned counsel appearing for the respondents based on the preliminary objections raised in the counter affidavit argued that the cause of action to challenge the order of retirement and for restoration of his service was available only up to June, 2006 and the writ petition having been filed only in March, 2007, the same is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action as well as delay and laches. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's service ought to have been extended beyond 58 years in terms of Article 226(1) & (2) of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulations and denying extension beyond 58 years is an order of compulsory retirement and the order having been passed by the high Court without any order being obtained from the Governor the same is not sustainable. Learned counsel also argued that the petitioner's services were not assessed properly, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as it is non est in law and he may be treated as served upto June, 2006 for the purpose of receiving salary and other benefits. 3. The issue regarding getting an order from the Government when a Judicial Officer is to retire at the age of 58 years was considered by A Full Bench of this Court today in LPASW No. 323/2001 [High Court of J&K v. Jankar Singh Cheema (deceased substituted by LRs)] wherein it has been held that as per Clause (2) of Article 226 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, the Judicial Officer can continue in service beyond 58 years only if High Court on assessment of merits, utility, integrity and other aspects recommends and unless such recommendations are made by the High Court the Judicial Officer has to retire at the age of 58 years. Thus, this issue is no longer res integra and if the Judicial Officer is to retire at the age of 58 years order of the Governor is not required in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2001) 2 SCC 305 (Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar). 4. The petitioner's merit, utility and all aspects were considered right from the date of his entry into service as assessed and it was noticed as follow:- i. From Ist January to 31 December, 1995 as against the column disposal of old cases, progress and disposal of execution applications and avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, the ACRs of the officer has been recorded as “average”. ii. In the ACRs from Ist January to 31 December, 1996 the officer has been recorded “satisfactory” for disposal of old cases. iii. In the ACRs from September to 31st December, 1997, it has been recorded that “disposal needs improvement”. In the column of other remarks, if any, it has been recorded that “there is a scope for improvement”. iv. In the ACRs for the Year, 2000 as against the column of knowledge of law, efficiency about judicial work, administrative capability, general reputation and overall assessment, the officer has been recorded as “average”. 5. The above entries in the ACRs were taken into consideration by the Committee headed by the then Chief Justice and it was resolved not to recommend extension of service, which was approved by the Full Court. 6. Insofar as contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the writ petition filed in the year 2007 is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner, even, according to his affidavit, has completed the age of 60 years in June, 2006, is well founded as the cause of action to challenge the order of retirement issued in June, 2004 and restoration of his service got expired in June, 2006, hence on that ground also, the writ petition cannot be entertained. Further the petitioner has not explained the delay for filing the writ petition belatedly i.e. after three years, hence the writ petition is hit by delay and laches. 7. This writ petition is dismissed. No costs.