Manjunath S Vs Central Silk Board

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:38313 WP No. 17745 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 17745 OF 2025 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANJUNATH S., S/O K. L. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 58 YEASR, WORKING AS SFW (TS) (EMP NO.0000052) S.S.O.C., N.S.S.O, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, RAMANAGARA - 562 160. R/AT NO.895, 2^ND CROSS, WARD NO.6, CHAMUNDI EXTENSION, RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI NAIK V.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

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

¶14

THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, MANANDAWADI ROAD, SRIRAMPURA, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶15

THE SCIENTIST - C., SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE, NSSO, CENTRAL SILK BOARD,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:38313 WP No. 17745 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N.S.NARASIMHA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED VIDE ORDER DATED 23.09.2025)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 14.05.2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND CONTINUE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER AS SKILLED FARM WORKER (TS) TILL HE ATTAINS THE AGE OF 60 YEARS.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider his representation dated 14.05.2025 vide Annexure-D and to continue his services as Skilled Farm Worker till he attains the age of 60 years.

¶25

The petitioner in this petition was initially appointed as Casual Labourer in the respondent - Central Silk Board ( 'Board' for short) and thereafter, he was extended with time scale and designated as Time Scale

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38313 WP No. 17745 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Farm Worker and is presently working as Skilled Farm Worker in the office of the third respondent. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the Management of the 1^st respondent - Board enhanced the age of superannuation to 60 years in respect of the staff working in the Board, but the said benefit was not extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, a dispute was raised by the Trade Union. The Management did not accede to the demand of the workmen and conciliation ended in failure and the report was forwarded to the Government of India, which referred the dispute to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT), Bengaluru.

¶29

It is further contended that upon consideration of the dispute, CGIT passed the award on 01.04.2013 allowing the reference and thereby the age of retirement was enhanced from 55 years to 60 years. The respondent No.1 - Board herein filed a writ petition challenging the award passed by the CGIT in Writ Petition No.18693/2014

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:38313 WP No. 17745 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

(L-RES). The Division Bench of this Court after considering

¶34

the rival contentions of both the parties, dismissed the writ petition filed by Respondent No.1 - Board.

¶35

It is further contention of learned counsel that the judgment passed by the Division Bench confirming the award passed by the Tribunal has attained finality for the reason that the same has not been questioned by Respondent No.1 - Board.

¶36

Under the circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner cannot be superannuated until they complete the age of 60 years and he should be permitted to work in the respondent - Board till he attains the age of 60 years.

¶37

On a question posed by this Court to the learned counsel for respondents as to whether the challenge is made to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, he submits that till date, no such challenge is made. He

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38313 WP No. 17745 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

also does not dispute the judgment passed by the Division

¶41

Bench of this Court stated supra having attained finality.

¶42

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.

¶43

It is not in dispute that in the similar situation, the Tribunal has passed the award enhancing the retirement age of Time Scale Farm Workers of the respondent - establishment to 60 years. It is also not in dispute that respondent-Board challenged the award passed by the Tribunal in Writ Petition No.18693/2014 and the Division Bench of this Court has dealt with the matter in detail and confirmed the award passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition by relying upon several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court is not questioned by the respondents and it has attained finality.

¶44

Based on the above Division Bench judgment, in an identical matter, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38313 WP No. 17745 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Writ Petition No.20742/2022 has declared that the age of superannuation would be 60 years.

¶48

This being the position, the issue involved in this writ petition is no more res integra . The question involved in the present petition being squarely covered by the judgments of the Division Bench and Coordinate Bench of

¶49

this Court stated supra , by following the said judgments this petition deserves to be allowed in the same terms.

¶50

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was continued in service as per the interim order without any break in service.

¶51

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is made clear that petitioner shall not be superannuated till he attains the age of 60 years.

¶52

13. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶53

O R D E R

¶54

i) The petition is allowed .

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:38313 WP No. 17745 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

ii) The petitioner is entitled to continue in employment under respondent - Board till he attains the age of superannuation of 60 years subject to all the Rules and Regulations applicable to the employment of the petitioner.

¶59

Ordered accordingly.

¶60

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶61

CPN

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Manjunath S v. Central Silk Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath S v. Central Silk Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banmali Vs the Central Silk Board

Sri R Murthy S/O Rangaswamy G Vs Sri Rangaswamy G S/O Late Guthaiah

Than Singh Vs the Central Silk Board

Ramesh Vs Central Silk Board

M/S Laxmi Electronic Moulds and Precision Engineering Private Limited Vs Bangalore East Industrial Workers Union

Sri. Sasuvehalli R N Vs the Managing Director