Karnataka High Court
Sri Shankari A vs Central Silk Board on 26 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11966
WP No. 5277 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.5277 OF 2026 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SHANKARI A
S/O. RAJAM ATTEM,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RETIRED SFW (TS),
CENTRAL SILK BOARD,
BASIC TASAR SILKWORM
SEED ORGANISATION,
R/AT C/O. MUDALAIAH,
NO. 121-A, 10TH 'B' CROSS,
SHANTHI GARDEN,
MUDULAPALYA,
Digitally BENGALURU-560 072.
signed by
PRAMILA G V
Location: ...PETITIONER
HIGH COURT (BY SRI. V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. CENTRAL SILK BOARD
BTM LAYOUT, MADIWALA,
BANGALORE-560 068,
REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (A AND A)
BASIC TASAR SILKWORM
SEED ORGANIZATION,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11966
WP No. 5277 of 2026
HC-KAR
CENTRAL SILK BOARD,
1ST FLOOR, PENDARI,
BHARNI PO,
VIA. GANIYARI,
BILASPUR,
CHATTISGARH-495 112.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NARASIMHA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE MEMORANDUM BEARING
NO.CSB/BTSSO/BSP/RETIRE/PF/DB-SFW (TS)/276 DATED
ND
01.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2 RESPONDENT, THE ORIGINAL
OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B TO
THIS WRIT PETITION, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus to quash the Memorandum dated 01.05.2024 issued by respondent No.2 marked at Annexure-'B'. In terms of the Memorandum, the -3- NC: 2026:KHC:11966 WP No. 5277 of 2026 HC-KAR petitioner is relieved from his duties with effect from 09.06.2024.
2. The petitioner had filed the petition in the light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Central Silk Board vs Employees Union of Central Silk Board & Another1 wherein, in terms of the order dated 04.09.2024, this Court has dismissed the petition filed by first respondent Central Silk Board and confirmed the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court.
3. In terms of the award dated 01.04.2013, the Tribunal has held that age of superannuation of the Timescale Farm Workers of the respondent establishment would be 60 years and not 55 years as contended by the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court confirming the award passed by the Tribunal is not questioned by the respondents and it has attained finality. 1 W.P. No.18693/2014 -4-
NC: 2026:KHC:11966 WP No. 5277 of 2026 HC-KAR
5. Thus, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner cannot be superannuated at the age of 58, and the petitioner is entitled to continue as the employee of respondent No.1 till the petitioner completes 60 years.
6. Learned counsel for respondents would submit that though the Board of first respondent has passed a resolution to implement the order, with effect from the date of the order passed in Central Silk Board (supra), the Board is yet to receive the approval from the Union of India for the decision taken by the Board. It is further submitted that since respondents are awaiting the decision of Union of India, from the perspective of the respondents the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal has not yet attained finality.
7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.
8. It is not in dispute that the award passed by the Tribunal enhancing the age of retirement to 60 years from 55 years is confirmed by the Division Bench in the case of -5- NC: 2026:KHC:11966 WP No. 5277 of 2026 HC-KAR Central Silk Board (supra). It is further not in dispute that the petitioner is working as Timescale Farm Workers with respondent No.1. The petitioner has completed 58 years after the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court confirming the award passed by the Tribunal.
9. This being the position, the award passed by the Tribunal which is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court comes to the aid of the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to the following relief:-
(i) It is declared that the petitioner's age of superannuation is 60 years.
(ii) The respondents shall not superannuate the petitioner treating the age of superannuation as 58 years.
(iii) Thus, the petitioner is entitled to continue in employment as Timescale Farm Workers under first respondent till the age of superannuation at 60 subject to all the Rules and Regulations applicable to the employment of the petitioner.-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:11966 WP No. 5277 of 2026 HC-KAR
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations and findings.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10