Sri Shiban Krishan v. Central Silk Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 9020 OF 2026 (L-RES) BETWEEN:

¶1SRI SHIBAN KRISHAN S/O PRITHVI NATH SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS SFW(TS), CENTRAL SILK BOARD, ] STSC CENTRAL SILK TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, JAMMU, R/AT C/O MUDALAIAH, NO.121-A, 10TH 'B' CROSS, SHANTHI GARDEN, MUDULAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 072. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NAIK V S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1CENTRAL SILK BOARD BTM LAYOUT, MADIWALA, BANGALORE - 560 068. REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,

¶2THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL SILK TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, BTM LAYOUT, MADIVALA, BENGALAURU-560 068.

by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3THE SCIENTIST-C, CENTRAL SILK TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, CSB COMPLEX, MIRANSAHIB, JAMMU-181 101 …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. NARASIMHA SWAMY N.S., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 05.03.2026 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.

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

¶1This petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.03.2026 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.

¶2The petitioner had filed the petition in the light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Central Silk Board v. 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.

¶3In 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.

¶4Learned 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

1 W.P. No.18693 of 2014.

questioned by the respondents and it has attained finality.

¶5Thus, 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.

¶6Learned 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 the case of 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 the respondents are awaiting the decision of the Union of India, from the perspective of the respondents the award passed by the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal has not yet attained finality.

¶7This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶8It 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 a Timescale Farm Worker 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.

¶9This 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 reliefs:-

(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 years, subject to all the Rules and Regulations applicable to the employment of the petitioner.

¶10The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations and findings.

Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 85