[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri V G Gangadharaiah vs Central Silk Board on 15 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:20559
WP No. 10346 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 10346 OF 2026 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI V.G. GANGADHARAIAH,
S/O LATE GANGABORAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
P2, BASIC SEED FARM,
NATIONAL SILKWORM SEED
ORGANISATION, CENTRAL SILK
BOARD, BANASAGERI, HALIYAL,
R/AT VADDARAKUPPE VILLAGE,
BHAKTHARAHALLI POST, KUNIGAL
TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 130
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAIK V.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. CENTRAL SILK BOARD
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI BTM LAYOUT, MADIWALA,
Location: HIGH BANGALORE - 560 068.
COURT OF REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA
2. THE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL SILKWORM SEED
ORGANISATION, CENTRAL SILK
BOARD, B.T.M. LAYOUT,
HOSUR ROAD, MADIWALA,
BENGALURU - 560 068
3. SCIENTIST-D,
P2 BASIC SEED FARM,
NATIONAL SILKWORM SEED
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:20559
WP No. 10346 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORGANISATION, CENTRAL SILK
BOARD, BANASAGERI, HALIYAL,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 329
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.S. NARASIMHA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED
17.03.2026 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND CONTINUE THE
SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER AS SKILLED FARM WORKER
(TS) TILL HE ATTAINS THE AGE OF 60 YEARS TO MEET THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
- B GROUP 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 direct
the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation
dated 17.03.2026 to continue in service under the respondents
till the petitioner completes the age of 60 years, which
according to the petitioner is the age of superannuation.
2. The petitioner has 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
NC: 2026:KHC:20559
HC-KAR
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.
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.2 till the petitioner completes 60 years.
NC: 2026:KHC:20559
HC-KAR
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 of this Court in the
case of Central Silk Board (supra). It is further not in dispute
that the petitioner is working as Timescale Farm Worker with
respondent No.2. The petitioner has completed 58 years after
the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court confirming
the award passed by the Tribunal.
NC: 2026:KHC:20559
HC-KAR
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 Worker under first respondent till the
age of superannuation at 60 subject to all the Rules and
Regulations applicable to the employment of the
petitioner.
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with
the above observations and findings.
SD/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
LRS/CT:VS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74
