[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Rameshwar Mahto vs The Central Silk Board on 23 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16244
WP No. 6006 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 6006 OF 2026 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
RAMESHWAR MAHTO
S/O LAGNU MAHTO,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
WORKING AS SKILLED
FARM WORKER, CENTRAL TASAR
RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE,
PISKA NAGRI VILLAGE AND POST,
RANCHI DISTRICT, JHARKHAND-835 303
AND R/AT SIMLIYA VILLAGE, RATU POST,
RANCHI DISTRICT, JHARKHAND-835 222
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT MOVVAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by PRAMILA G
V 1. THE CENTRAL SILK BOARD
Location: HIGH
COURT OF REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA CSB COMPLEX, BTM LAYOUT,
MADIWALA, BENGALURU-560 068
2. THE DIRECTOR
CENTRAL TASAR RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
PISKA NAGRI, RANCHI,
JHARKHAND-835 303
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16244
WP No. 6006 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. THE SCIENTIST- D
CENTRAL SILK BOARD,
CENTRAL TASAR RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
PISKA NAGRI, RANCHI,
JHARKHAND-835 303
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N.S.NARASIMHA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOA) QUASH THE
CLAUSE A-11 OF THE MEMORANDUM BEARING NO. KE RE
BO/KSHE RE UU AA KE /RANCHI/STHA/KAA.PRA.,KAA/15-
16/101 DATED 23/04/2016 ISSUED BY THE R3 MAKRED AT
ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS AGE OF RETIREMENT IS ON
ATTAINING AGE OF 58 YEARS AS THE SAME IS OPPOSED TO
THE AWARD DATED 01/04/2013 IN C.R. NO. 151/2007 PASSED
BY THE CGIT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO SEC. 18 (3)
(d) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 AND ARTICLE 14
AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN '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
NC: 2026:KHC:16244
HC-KAR
dated 10.02.2026 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
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
NC: 2026:KHC:16244
HC-KAR
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.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.
NC: 2026:KHC:16244
HC-KAR
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
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
NC: 2026:KHC:16244
HC-KAR
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
brn
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56
