[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
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
NC: 2026:KHC:11966
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:11966
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
NC: 2026:KHC:11966
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:11966
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
