Disposed¶38

Smt. T. Nagamma v. Central Silk Board

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2026WP/17079/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Central Silk Board service matter; Skilled Farm Worker (TS) continuation of service till superannuation age 60; representation dated 06.06.2026 Annexure-C; disposed of in terms of coordinate bench order W.P.No.18131/2025 dated 22.09.2025; relieved-to-reinstatement period treated as 'on duty' for all purposes; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; mandamus; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Jyoti M, J.; WP No. 17079 of 2026 (L-RES); decided 15 June 2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of the coordinate bench order in W.P.No.18131/2025 (22.09.2025); petitioner entitled to continue in employment under respondent Board till superannuation at 60 years subject to applicable Rules and Regulations, with the period from relieving till reinstatement counted as 'on duty' for all purposes. ¶38

Smt. T. Nagamma Vs Central Silk Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed (by writ of mandamus) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.06.2026 (Annexure-C) and continue the petitioner's services as Skilled Farm Worker (TS) until the petitioner attains the age of 60 years.

¶29

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.18131/2025 disposed of on 22.09.2025.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is entitled to continue in employment under respondent Board till attainment of the age of superannuation of 60 years, subject to all the Rules and Regulations applicable to the employment of the petitioner.

¶43

Key takeaways

The period from the date of relieving the petitioner from duties till the petitioner is taken back to duties shall be considered as 'on duty' for all purposes.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Jyoti M, J.), W.P. No. 17079 of 2026 (L-RES), order dated 15.06.2026 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Petitioner, working as SFW (TS) at the Research Extension Centre, Central Silk Board, Madivala (Kolar), sought mandamus directing respondents to consider the representation dated 06.06.2026 (Annexure-C) and continue services till the age of 60 years. On joint submissions of counsel that the matter was squarely covered by W.P.No.18131/2025 (coordinate bench, disposed of 22.09.2025), the Court disposed of the petition in terms of that order, recording that the petitioner is entitled to continue in employment under respondent Board till the age of superannuation of 60 years, subject to all applicable Rules and Regulations, and that the period from relieving till reinstatement shall be treated as 'on duty' for all purposes. Vakalath of respondents' counsel was directed to be accepted.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28833 WP No. 17079 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 17079 OF 2026 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. T.NAGAMMA W/O B.N.VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS SFW (TS), RESEARCH EXTENSION CENTRE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, MADIVALA (KOLAR)-563 137 R/AT NO.B1 BLOCK, VEMAGAL, KOLAR-563 101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

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

¶14

THE INCHARGE AND SCIENTIST-C, RESEARCH EXTENSION CENTRE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, MADIVALA (KOLAR)-563 137.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. N.S.NARASIMHASWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:28833 WP No. 17079 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Sri.V.S.Naik., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

¶24

Sri.N.S.Narasimha Swamy., counsel has appeared in person and submits that he undertakes to file power on behalf of the respondents.

¶25

Submission is noted. Office is directed to accept the vakalath that would be filed by counsel Sri.N.S.Narasimha Swamy.

¶26

The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking following

¶27

reliefs:

¶28

(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other

¶29

appropriate writ or order or direction directing the Respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated:06.06.2026 produced at Annexure-C and continue the services of the petitioner as Skilled Farm Worker (TS) till he

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:28833 WP No. 17079 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

attains the age of 60 years to meet the ends of justice;

¶34

(b) Pass such other order/ orders, as deemed fit

¶35

in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶36

Counsel for the respective parties jointly submit that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.18131/2025 disposed of on 22.09.2025. Counsel, therefore, submits that the captioned Writ Petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.18131/2025 disposed of on 22.09.2025.

¶37

The oral submission made by counsel for the respective parties is placed on record.

¶38

The captioned Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.18131/2025 disposed of on 22.09.2025.

¶39

The petitioner is entitled to continue in employment under respondent - Board till he attains the age of

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:28833 WP No. 17079 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

superannuation of 60 years subject to all the Rules and Regulations applicable to the employment of the petitioner. The period from the date of relieving the petitioner from duties till he is taken back to duties shall be considered as 'on duty' for

¶44

all the purposes.

¶45

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶46

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Smt. T. Nagamma v. Central Silk Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. T. Nagamma 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

Sri Ayub Ali Vs the Canara Bank

Mrs. Giridhar Rao Anitha Vs the Authorised Officer

Sri Hanumanthegowda Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sanjay. K Vs Bank of Maharashtra

Lakshmi N Vs the Reserve Bank of India

M/S Priya Products Vs the Authorized Officer Union Bank of India.