Disposed¶50

Nand Kishore v. the Central Silk Board

Karnataka HC25 Feb 2026WP/4138/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Age of superannuation; Timescale Farm Worker; Skilled Farm Worker (T/S); Central Silk Board; NSSO Basic Seed Farm; CGIT award dated 01.04.2013 in C.R No.151/2007; confirmation by Division Bench order dated 04.09.2024 in W.P. No.18693/2014; retirement at 58 versus 60; memorandum dated 30.03.2016 Clause A-11; representation dated 08.01.2026; mandamus; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 S.18(3)(d); Articles 14, 21 and 226; Union of India approval for implementation; Karnataka HC, single judge, disposed.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the petitioner's age of superannuation is 60 years; direction that respondents shall not superannuate him at 58 years; entitlement to continue in employment as Timescale Farm Worker under respondent No.1 until age 60, subject to applicable Rules and Regulations. ¶50

Nand Kishore Vs the Central Silk Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a Timescale Farm Worker whose cadre's superannuation age was fixed at 60 years by the CGIT award confirmed by the Division Bench, must be retired at 58 years or is entitled to continue in service until 60 years. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

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

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The award passed by the Tribunal, as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, comes to the aid of the petitioner, who is entitled to the reliefs granted.

¶46

Key takeaways

The respondents shall not superannuate the petitioner treating his age of superannuation as 58 years.ratio¶48
The petitioner is entitled to continue in employment as Timescale Farm Worker under the first respondent until the age of superannuation at 60, subject to all applicable Rules and Regulations.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.) disposes of a writ petition by a Timescale Farm Worker of the Central Silk Board's NSSO Basic Seed Farm who completed 58 years after the Division Bench, by order dated 04.09.2024 in W.P. No.18693/2014, dismissed the Board's petition and confirmed the CGIT award dated 01.04.2013 in C.R No.151/2007 holding superannuation of Timescale Farm Workers to be 60 years and not 55; the impugned Clause A-11 of the memorandum dated 30.03.2016 fixed retirement at 58. Recording that it was 'not in dispute' that the confirmed award aided the petitioner, the Court declared his age of superannuation to be 60 years, restrained the respondents from retiring him at 58, and held him entitled to continue in employment until 60, subject to all applicable Rules and Regulations. The respondents' contention that the Board's implementation awaited Union of India approval did not alter the outcome. Petition disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:11737 WP No. 4138 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 4138 OF 2026 (L-PF)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NAND KISHORE S/O GANGA RAM AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS SKILLED FARM WORKER (T/S) P-2, BASIC SEED FARM, NSSO CENTRAL SILK BOARD, SHEESHAMBARA POST DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND -248 007 AND R/AT NO.24, MANDU WALA KASWALI, DEHRADUN UTTARAKHAND-248 007

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI M.NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA 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 CSB -N S S O CENTRAL SILK BOARD MADIWALA, BENGALURU -560 068

¶15

THE SCIENTIST -D AND IN-CHARGE CENTRAL SILK BOARD P-2, BASIC SEED FARM, NSSO SHEESHAMBARA POST SHERPUR, UTTARAKHAND -248197

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:11737 WP No. 4138 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

(BY SRI NARASIMHASWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CLAUSE A-11 OF THE MEMORANDUM BEARING No. CSB/NSSO/ZSSO/ESTAB.SFW(TS)/2015-16/2415 DATED 30.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A INSOFAR AS AGE OF RETIREMENT IS ON ATTAINING AGE OF 58 YEARS AS THE SAME IS OPPOSED TO THE AWARD DATED 01.04.2013 IN C.R NO.151/2007 PASSED BY THE CGIT MARKED AT ANNEXURE -B AND ALSO SECTION 18(3)(D) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 AND ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.01.2026 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.

¶26

The petitioner had filed the petition in the light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Central Silk Board vs Employees Union of Central Silk

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:11737 WP No. 4138 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

1 W.P. No.18693/2014

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:11737 WP No. 4138 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Learned 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 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 Central Government Industrial Tribunal has not yet attained finality.

¶39

This Court has considered the contentions raised at

¶40

the bar and perused the records.

¶41

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 of this Court in the case of Central Silk Board (supra) . It is further not in dispute that the petitioner is working as 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.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:11737 WP No. 4138 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

This being the position, the award passed by the

¶46

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:-

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

(iii) Thus, the petitioner is entitled to continue in employment as Timescale Farm Worker under first respondent till the age of superannuation at 60 subject to all the Rules and Regulations applicable to the employment of the petitioner.

¶50

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

¶51

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶52

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30

¶53

Nand Kishore v. the Central Silk Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Kishore v. the 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

The Manager Vs M/S. Gemini Dying and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Iti Ltd. Vs the Appellate Authority

The Chief Executive Officer Vs Smt Papamma

Sri. R. N. Nanjundappa Vs Bangalore Mahangara Palike

Sri K Parandhama Reddy, Vs Central Silk Board

Smt Pushpa Ramu Vs Smt v Aruna Devi