Disposed¶46

Sri Lakshminarayana v. Central Silk Board

Karnataka HC27 Apr 2026WP/13010/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retirement age; age of superannuation 60 vs 55; Timescale Farm Worker; Central Silk Board; Silk Worm Seed Project Centre; Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court award dated 01.04.2013; Division Bench confirmation order dated 04.09.2024; W.P. No.18693/2014; writ of mandamus; representation dated 16.04.2026; pending Union of India approval; Articles 226 and 227; Karnataka High Court; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's age of superannuation declared to be 60 years; respondents restrained from superannuating him at 58; petitioner entitled to continue as Timescale Farm Worker under respondent No.1 till age 60, subject to applicable Rules and Regulations. ¶46

Sri Lakshminarayana Vs Central Silk Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a Timescale Farm Worker under respondent No.1, is entitled to continue in service until the age of 60 years in view of the Tribunal award (fixing superannuation at 60, not 55) as confirmed by the Division Bench, notwithstanding the respondents' contention that Union of India approval to the Board's resolution is pending.

¶22

Court's answer

The Tribunal award enhancing the retirement age to 60 years, as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, comes to the aid of the petitioner.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

It is declared that the petitioner's age of superannuation is 60 years.

¶41

Key takeaways

The respondents shall not superannuate the petitioner treating his age of superannuation as 58 years.ratio¶44
The petitioner is entitled to continue in employment as a Timescale Farm Worker under respondent No.1 till the age of superannuation at 60, subject to all the Rules and Regulations applicable to his employment.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (L-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 — Petitioner, a Timescale Farm Worker under respondent No.1-Central Silk Board, aged 58, sought continuance in service till 60 years relying on the Division Bench order dated 04.09.2024 in W.P. No.18693/2014 (Central Silk Board vs Employees Union of Central Silk Board & Another), which dismissed the Board's petition and confirmed the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court award dated 01.04.2013 fixing the age of superannuation of Timescale Farm Workers at 60 years and not 55 years — Respondents' plea that the Board's implementation resolution awaited Union of India approval did not defeat the relief — Held: petitioner's age of superannuation declared to be 60 years; respondents restrained from superannuating him at 58; petitioner entitled to continue in employment till 60, subject to applicable Rules and Regulations — Writ petition disposed of (Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:23474 WP No. 13010 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 13010 OF 2026 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O SOMANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT 66/9, L.N.NILAYA, VADERAHALLI, NEAR ANJANAYA TEMPLE, VADERAHALLI, RAMNAGARAM, RAMANAGAR, KARNATAKA - 562159.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NAIK V S., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

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

¶12

Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE SCIENTIST-C, SILK WORM SEED PROJECT CENTRE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, RAMANAGARA, (NEAR GHOUSIA COLLEGE) BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

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

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND GRANT THE PETITIONER THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS: (A) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16.04.2026 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 AND ETC.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:23474 WP No. 13010 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.04.2026 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.

¶23

The petitioner has filed the petition in the light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in

¶24

Central Silk Board vs Employees Union of Central Silk

¶25

Board & Another¹ wherein, in terms of the order dated 04.09.2024, this Court has dismissed the petition filed by respondent No.1-Central Silk Board and confirmed the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court.

¶26

1 W.P. No.18693/2014

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:23474 WP No. 13010 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

Learned counsel for respondents would submit that though the Board of respondent No.1 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

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:23474 WP No. 13010 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Central Government Industrial Tribunal has not yet attained finality.

¶37

This Court has considered the contentions raised at

¶38

the Bar and perused the records.

¶39

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.

¶40

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:

¶41

(i) It is declared that the petitioner's age of superannuation is 60 years.

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:23474 WP No. 13010 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

(ii) The respondents shall not superannuate the petitioner treating the age of superannuation as 58 years.

¶45

(iii) Thus, the petitioner is entitled to continue in employment as Timescale Farm Workers under respondent No.1 till the age of superannuation at 60, subject to all the Rules and Regulations applicable to the employment of the petitioner.

¶46

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with

¶47

the above observations and findings.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶50

GVP

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65

Sri Lakshminarayana v. Central Silk Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lakshminarayana 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

Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager Vs Mr. H. N. Shivananjaiah

Sri Hemantraj B Vs M/S Global E-Softsys Pvt. Ltd.

Sri H Venkatappa Vs Sri Venkataravanaiah

Mylan Laboratories Ltd. Vs Engineering and General Workers Union

Sri M Madhappa Vs Central Silk Board

Shri v Suresh Vs Smt Lakshmamma