- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38830 WP No. 18123 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 18123 OF 2025 (L-RES) BETWEEN: SONADHAR MOURYA S/O KAMLOCHAN MOURYA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, EARLIER WORKING AS SKILLED FARM WORKER (T/S) NOW SUPERANNUATED ILLEGALLY, REGIONAL TASAR RESEARCH STATION CENTRAL SILK BOARD, KALIPUR ROAD, JAGDALPUR POST, BASTAR DISTRICT, CHATTISGARH- 494 005 AND R/AT NO. 130, TETARKHUTIPARA, GURU GOVIND SINGH WARD, NO. 36, JAGDALPUR POST, BASTAR DISTRICT, CHATTISGARH-494 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CENTRAL SILK BOARD REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, CSB COMPLEX, BTM LAYOUT, MADIWALA, BENGALURU-560 068, 2. THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL SILK BOARD, MOT, GOVT. OF INDIA, CENTRAL TASAR RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38830 WP No. 18123 of 2025 PISKA NAGARI, RANCHI, JHARKHAND-835 303 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NARASIMHA SWAMY N S., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE MEMORANDUM BEARING NO. KE TA AAVA PRASAM./STA./NI.PA./ SOU. MOURYA/4884 DATED 15.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F AS THE SAME ARE OPPOSED TO THE AWARD DATED 01.04.2013 IN C.R NO. 151 / 2007 PASSED BY THE CGIT MARKED AT ANNEXURE A AND ALSO SEC.18 (3) (D) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 AND ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the memorandum dated 15.1.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and also for a direction to the respondents to pay the full salary to the petitioner from 15.2.2025 to 15.2.2027.. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as casual labourer in the respondent - Central Silk Board ('Board' - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38830 WP No. 18123 of 2025 for short) and thereafter he was given the status of Time Scale Farm Worker. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the Management of the 1st respondent - Board enhanced the age of superannuation to 60 years in respect of the staff working in the Board, but the said benefit was not extended to the petitioner, who is Farm Worker. Accordingly, a dispute was raised by the Trade Union. The Management did not accede to the demand of the workmen and conciliation ended in failure and the report was forwarded to the Government of India, which referred the dispute to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT), Bengaluru. 3. It is further contended that upon consideration of the dispute, CGIT passed the award on 1.4.2013 allowing the reference and thereby the age of retirement was enhanced from 55 years to 60 years. The respondent No.1 - Board herein filed a writ petition challenging the award passed by the CGIT in Writ Petition No.18693/2014 (L- RES). The Division Bench of this Court after considering - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38830 WP No. 18123 of 2025 the rival contentions of both the parties, dismissed the writ petition filed by Respondent No.1 - Board. 4. It is further contention of learned counsel that the judgment passed by the Division Bench confirming the award passed by the Tribunal has attained finality for the reason that the same has not been questioned by Respondent No.1 - Board. 5. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner cannot be superannuated until he completes the age of 60 years and he should be permitted to work in the respondent - Board till he attains the age of 60 years. 6. Learned counsel representing respondents - Sri N.S. Narasimha Swamy is present through video conferencing and on a question posed to him by this Court as to whether the challenge is made to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, he submits that till date, no such challenge is made. He also does not dispute the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38830 WP No. 18123 of 2025 judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court stated supra having attained finality. 7. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. 8. It is not in dispute that in the similar situation, the Tribunal has passed the award enhancing the retirement age of Time Scale Farm Workers of the respondent - establishment to 60 years. It is also not in dispute that respondent/Board challenged the award passed by the Tribunal in Writ Petition No.18693/2014 and the Division Bench of this Court has dealt with the matter in detail and confirmed the award passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition by relying upon several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court is not questioned by the respondents and it has attained finality. 9. Based on the above Division Bench judgment, in an identical matter, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38830 WP No. 18123 of 2025 Writ Petition No.20742/2022 has declared that the age of superannuation would be 60 years. 10. This being the position, the issue involved in this writ petition is no more res integra. The question involved in the present petition being squarely covered by the judgments of the Division Bench and Coordinate Bench of this Court stated supra, by following the said judgments this petition deserves to be allowed in the same terms. 11. Accordingly, I pass the following: O R D E R i) The petition is allowed. ii) The Memorandum dated 15.1.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-F is hereby quashed. iii) The petitioner is entitled to continue in employment as Timescale Farm Worker under respondent - Board till he attains the age of superannuation of 60 years subject to all the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38830 WP No. 18123 of 2025 Rules and Regulations applicable to the employment of the petitioner. iv) The respondents having taken back the petitioner to the duty by virtue of the interim order passed in this writ petition, the period from the date of relieving the petitioner from duty till he is taken back to duty shall be considered as 'on duty' for all the purposes. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE Snb/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29