Sri Shiban Krishan v. Central Silk Board

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2026WP/9020/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus writ under Articles 226/227 by a Timescale Farm Worker (SFW-TS) of Central Silk Board seeking continuance in service till age 60. Key anchors: superannuation age 60 vs 55/58; CGIT-cum-Labour Court award dated 01.04.2013; Division Bench confirmation dated 04.09.2024 in W.P. No.18693 of 2014 (Central Silk Board v. Employees Union of Central Silk Board & Another); representation dated 05.03.2026 (Annexure-C); pending Union of India approval; declaration of retirement age; subject to Rules and Regulations; HC-KAR, Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde; NC: 2026:KHC:18376.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the petitioner's age of superannuation is 60 years; bar on superannuating him at 58; continuance in employment as Timescale Farm Worker under the first respondent till 60 years, subject to the applicable Rules and Regulations.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a Skilled/Timescale Farm Worker with the Central Silk Board, is entitled to superannuate at 60 years and continue in service till then, rather than at 58, in view of the Tribunal award confirmed by the Division Bench. +1 more

¶¶27

Court's answer

The Tribunal award enhancing the retirement age from 55 to 60 years, as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, comes to the aid of the petitioner, who completed 58 years only after that confirmation.

¶¶47

Ratio / Principle

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

¶¶50

Key takeaways

The respondents shall not superannuate the petitioner treating the age of superannuation as 58 years.ratio¶¶51
The petitioner is entitled to continue in employment as Timescale Farm Worker under the first respondent till the age of superannuation at 60 years, subject to the Rules and Regulations applicable to his employment.ratio¶¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (L-RES) disposed of by oral order of a Single Judge (Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Declared that the petitioner, Sri Shiban Krishan, working as SFW(TS)/Timescale Farm Worker under the Central Silk Board, has 60 years as his age of superannuation; the respondents shall not superannuate him at 58; and he is entitled to continue in employment under the first respondent till 60 years, subject to the Rules and Regulations applicable to his employment. Foundation: the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court award dated 01.04.2013 (age of superannuation of Timescale Farm Workers to be 60 years and not 55), confirmed by the Division Bench of the same Court in Central Silk Board v. Employees Union of Central Silk Board & Another, W.P. No.18693 of 2014 (order dated 04.09.2024), which the petitioner completed 58 years after. The respondents' plea that Union of India approval was awaited did not defeat the claim; the writ was disposed of with the above observations and findings.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18376 WP No. 9020 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 9020 OF 2026 (L-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI SHIBAN KRISHAN S/O PRITHVI NATH SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS SFW(TS), CENTRAL SILK BOARD, ] STSC CENTRAL SILK TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, JAMMU, R/AT C/O MUDALAIAH, NO.121-A, 10^TH 'B' CROSS, SHANTHI GARDEN, MUDULAPALYA, BENGALURU- 560 072.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. NAIK V S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

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

¶16

THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL SILK TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, BTM LAYOUT, MADIVALA, BENGALAURU-560 068.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:18376 WP No. 9020 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE SCIENTIST-C, CENTRAL SILK TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, CSB COMPLEX, MIRANSAHIB, JAMMU-181 101

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

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

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 05.03.2026 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.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.03.2026 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.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18376 WP No. 9020 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The petitioner had filed the petition in the light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Central Silk Board v. Employees Union of Central Silk 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-cumLabour 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 that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court confirming the award passed by the Tribunal is not

¶33

1 W.P. No.18693 of 2014.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:18376 WP No. 9020 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

questioned by the respondents and it has attained finality.

¶38

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.

¶39

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 the case of Central

¶40

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 the respondents are awaiting the decision of the Union of India, from the perspective of the respondents the award passed by the Central

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:18376 WP No. 9020 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Government Industrial Tribunal has not yet attained finality.

¶45

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶46

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 a 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.

¶47

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 reliefs:-

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18376 WP No. 9020 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶55

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 85

Sri Shiban Krishan v. Central Silk Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shiban Krishan 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

Kumar.K Vs the Hotel Manager

A.S. Umesha Vs the Management

Dr Sunitha Agarwal Vs M/S Rajashree Enterprises

Deepak Bhat Vs the State of Karnataka

K N Prakash Vs the Chief Secretary

Arif Hasan Vs the State of Karnataka