Sri Muner Ahmad Khan Bakhsh Vs Central Silk Board

SRI MUNEER AHMAD KHAN BAKHSH, S/O FATEH MOHD. KHAN BAKHSH, AGED 58 YEARS, WORKING AS SFW(TS), CENTRAL SILK BOARD, CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE, PAMPORE, SRINAGAR 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

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

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

¶16

THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, PAMPORE, JAMMU AND KASHMIR - 191 121

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. N.S. NARASIMHA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20561 WP No. 9538 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND GRANT THE PETITIONER THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS. AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 05.03.2026 PRODUCED AT ANNX-C AND CONTINUE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER AS SKILLED FARM WORKER (TS) TILL THE ATTAINS THE AGE OF 60 YEARS TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - 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 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.

¶26

The petitioner has 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 Board & Another¹ wherein, in terms of the order dated 04.09.2024, this Court has dismissed the petition filed by first

¶27

1 W.P. No.18693/2014

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20561 WP No. 9538 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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 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.

¶33

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.2 till the petitioner completes 60 years.

¶34

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

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:20561 WP No. 9538 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

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.2. 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

This being the position, the award passed by the

¶43

Tribunal which is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:20561 WP No. 9538 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

comes to the aid of the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to the following relief:-

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

(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.

¶51

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with

¶52

the above observations and findings.

¶53

SD/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶54

LRS CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72

Sri Muner Ahmad Khan Bakhsh v. Central Silk Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Muner Ahmad Khan Bakhsh 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

M v Ganesh Prasad Vs M/s Ganesha and Co.

Sri Moin Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Official Liquidator of Vs M/S Black Rain Hospitality Private Limited

Vikrant Tyres Employees Union Vs the Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Uma Mahesh B L Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S N Sarpashayana Vs the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation