Banmali v. the Central Silk Board

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2025WP/18125/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Superannuation age 60 vs 58; Central Silk Board skilled farm worker illegally superannuated; memorandum dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure-F) quashed; CGIT award dated 01.04.2013 in C.R.No.151/2007 enhancing retirement age 55 to 60; Division Bench W.P. No.18693/2014 confirmed award, attained finality; Coordinate Bench W.P. No.20742/2022 followed; Article 226 petition; S.18(3)(d) Industrial Disputes Act 1947; Articles 14 and 21 Constitution; reinstatement interregnum treated as on duty; mandamus for salary 28.05.2025 to 28.05.2027.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Memorandum dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure-F) quashed; petitioner entitled to continue in employment till the age of superannuation of 60 years subject to applicable Rules and Regulations; period from relieving till reinstatement under the interim order treated as 'on duty' for all purposes.

Banmali Vs the Central Silk Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the memorandum dated 27.05.2025 issued by the second respondent relieving the petitioner from duties on attaining the age of 58 years should be quashed, and whether the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years in terms of the CGIT award. +1 more

¶¶24

Court's answer

The question involved being squarely covered by the judgments of the Division Bench (W.P. No.18693/2014) and the Coordinate Bench (W.P. No.20742/2022) of this Court, the petition deserves to be allowed in the same terms by following those judgments.

¶¶50

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner shall not be superannuated till he attains the age of 60 years.

¶¶57

Key takeaways

The Memorandum dated 27.05.2025 vide Annexure-F is quashed.ratio¶¶61
The petitioner is entitled to continue in employment under the respondent Board till he attains the age of superannuation of 60 years, subject to all the Rules and Regulations applicable to his employment.ratio¶¶62
Since the respondents took back the petitioner to duties by virtue of the interim order, the period from the date of relieving him till he was taken back shall be considered as 'on duty' for all purposes.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.) in W.P. No. 18125 of 2025 (L-RES), decided 22.09.2025 — ALLOWED. Petitioner, a skilled farm worker under the Central Silk Board, was relieved by memorandum dated 27.05.2025 on attaining 58 years. He invoked Article 226 read with S.18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, relying on the CGIT award dated 01.04.2013 in C.R.No.151/2007 enhancing retirement age from 55 to 60 years, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.P. No.18693/2014 (not questioned, hence final) and similarly declared by the Coordinate Bench in W.P. No.20742/2022. Held: the issue is squarely covered by those judgments; the petitioner shall not be superannuated till 60 years; the memorandum is quashed; he is entitled to continue till 60 subject to applicable Rules and Regulations; and the period between relieving and reinstatement under the interim order is treated as 'on duty' for all purposes.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:38020 WP No. 18125 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 18125 OF 2025 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BANMALI, S/O SAMNATH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, EARLIER WORKING AS SKILLED FARM WORKER (T/S), NOW SUPERANNUATED ILLEGALLY, BASIC SEED MULTIPLICATION AND TRAINING CENTRE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, BASTAR POST, BASTAR DISTRICT, CHATTISGARH- 494 223, AND R/AT NO. 1, OGAYGUDA, BALENGA, BASTAR, CHATTISGARH-494 223.

¶9

&PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI NARAYANA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, MOT, GOVT. OF INDIA, 1^ST FLOOR, PENDARI, BHARNI POST, GANIYARI, BILASPUR, CHATTISGARH-495 112.

¶15

&RESPONDENTS

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:38020 WP No. 18125 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE MEMORANDUM CSB/BTSSO/ESTT.PF (BAN-SFW-TSS)/292 DATED 27.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F AS THE SAME ARE OPPOSED TO THE AWARD DATED 01.04.2013 IN C.R.NO.151/2007 PASSED BY THE CGIT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO SEC.18(3)(D) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 AND ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, 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 to quash the memorandum dated 27.05.2025 issued by the second respondent, whereby the respondent - Board relieved him from duties on attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to pay the full salary to him from 28.05.2025 to 28.05.2027 and all consequential benefits.

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38020 WP No. 18125 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

The petitioner in this petition was initially

¶28

appointed as Casual Labourer in the respondent - Central Silk Board ( 'Board' for short) and thereafter, he was extended with pay benefits under Time Scale pay w.e.f. 01.09.1992 and thereafter, he was extended with benefits of temporary status under the scheme w.e.f. 01.07.2015 by the order dated 31.03.2016. 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 Tribunalcum-Labour Court (CGIT), Bengaluru.

¶29

It is further contended that upon consideration of the dispute, CGIT passed the award on 01.04.2013

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38020 WP No. 18125 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

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 (L-RES). The Division Bench of this Court after considering the rival contentions of both the parties, dismissed the writ petition filed by Respondent No.1 - Board.

¶33

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.

¶34

Under the circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner cannot be superannuated until they complete the age of 60 years

¶35

and he should be permitted to work in the respondent - Board till he attains the age of 60 years.

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38020 WP No. 18125 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

On a question posed by this Court to the learned

¶39

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 also does not dispute the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court stated supra having attained finality.

¶40

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and

¶41

learned counsel for respondents.

¶42

It is not in dispute that in the similar situation,

¶43

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

¶44

and dismissed the writ petition by relying upon several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38020 WP No. 18125 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

passed by the Division Bench of this Court is not

¶48

questioned by the respondents and it has attained finality.

¶49

Based on the above Division Bench judgment, in an identical matter, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.20742/2022 has declared that the age of superannuation would be 60 years.

¶50

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

¶51

During the course of arguments, learned counsel

¶52

for petitioner submits that petitioner was put into employment by virtue of the interim order passed in the present writ petition.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:38020 WP No. 18125 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is

¶57

made clear that petitioner shall not be superannuated till he attains the age of 60 years.

¶58

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶59

O R D E R

¶60

i) The petition is allowed .

¶61

ii) The Memorandum dated 27.05.2025 vide Annexure-F is hereby quashed.

¶62

iii) 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.

¶63

iv) In view of respondents having taken back the petitioner to the duties by virtue of the interim order passed in this writ petition, the period from the date of relieving the petitioner from duties till he is taken back to duties shall

¶64