- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38018 WP No. 13618 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 13618 OF 2025 (L-RES) BETWEEN: RAMESHA G.K., S/O LATE KALE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKING AS SKILLED FARM WORKER (T/S) CENTRAL SERICULTURE AND RESEARCH TRAINING INSTITUTE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, SRIRAMPURA, MYSORE-570 008 AND R/AT NO.88/2, GUDEHOSAHALLI, UGINAHALLI POST, KIKKERI HOBLI, K.R.PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 423. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NARAYANA BHAT M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CENTRAL SILK BOARD, REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, CSB COMPLEX, BTM LAYOUT, MADIWALA, BENGALURU-560 068. 2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (A AND A) CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, MYSORE-570 008. 3. SCIENTIST- D., NSSO, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, MYSURU-560 025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NARASIMHA SWAMY N.S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38018 WP No. 13618 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CLAUSE A-11 OF MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.CSB/NSSO/GVT/ TSFW/15-16/PF DATED 02.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS AGE OF RETIREMENT IS ON ATTAINING AGE OF 58 YEARS ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT 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-B 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 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the Clause A-11 of memorandum dated 02.04.2016 issued by the third respondent vide Annexure-A insofar as age of retirement is on attaining age of 58 years and the intimation dated 06.01.2025 issued by the second respondent. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus for a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider his representation dated 21.04.2025 and to continue his services as Skilled Farm Worker till he attains - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38018 WP No. 13618 of 2025 the age of 60 years and consequently, pay full salary and extend consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner in this petition was initially appointed as Casual Labourer in the respondent - Central Silk Board ('Board' for short) and thereafter, he was extended with benefits of temporary status under the scheme w.e.f. 01.07.2015 by the order dated 02.04.2016 and now he is working as Skilled 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. 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. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38018 WP No. 13618 of 2025 3. It is further contended that upon consideration of the dispute, CGIT passed the award on 01.04.2013 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 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 they complete the age of 60 years and he should be permitted to work in the respondent - Board till he attains the age of 60 years. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38018 WP No. 13618 of 2025 6. On a question posed by this Court to the learned counsel for respondents 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 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38018 WP No. 13618 of 2025 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 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. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was continued in service as per the interim order without any break in service. 12. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is made clear that petitioner shall not be superannuated till he attains the age of 60 years. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38018 WP No. 13618 of 2025 13. Accordingly, I pass the following: O R D E R i) The petition is allowed. ii) The Clause A-11 of Memorandum dated 02.04.2016 issued by third respondent vide Annexure-A and intimation dated 06.01.2025 issued by second respondent vide Annexure-F, in so far as age of retirement is on attaining age of 58 years, are hereby quashed. iii) The petitioner is entitled to continue in employment under respondent - Board till he attains the age of superannuation of 60 years subject to all the Rules and Regulations applicable to the employment of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42