In a significant ruling on service continuation rights, the Karnataka High Court has quashed a termination order issued by the Central Silk Board and directed the reinstatement of a retired skilled worker until he attains the age of 60. The judgment reinforces the principle that employees covered under specific service rules are entitled to continue in service beyond the standard retirement age, subject to applicable regulations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sri. Sufal Tudu, a retired Skilled Farm Worker (TS) from the Central Silk Board, challenged a memorandum dated 29.05.2026 issued by the second respondent, which terminated his services. The petitioner sought continuation in service until the age of 60, relying on service rules and a precedent set by a coordinate bench of the Karnataka High Court in W.P.No.18131/2025.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was employed as a Skilled Farm Worker (TS) at the Central Silk Board, Basic Seed Farm, National Silkworm Seed Organization
- A memorandum dated 29.05.2026 (Annexure-B) terminated his services
- The petitioner sought reinstatement until the age of 60, citing applicable service rules
- The dispute was governed by the precedent in W.P.No.18131/2025, disposed of on 22.09.2025
Procedural History
- 2026: The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 19096 of 2026 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
- The matter was listed for preliminary hearing in the 'B' group
- Counsel for both parties submitted that the issue was squarely covered by the order in W.P.No.18131/2025
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the following reliefs:
- Quashing of the memorandum dated 29.05.2026 (Annexure-B) via a writ of certiorari
- A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to continue his services until the age of 60
- Any other appropriate order in the interest of justice and equity
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the petitioner, a retired skilled worker, was entitled to continuation in service until the age of 60 under the applicable service rules, and whether the termination order dated 29.05.2026 was legally sustainable.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner relied on the precedent set in W.P.No.18131/2025, which held that employees in similar positions were entitled to continue in service until the age of 60
- The termination order (Annexure-B) was arbitrary and contrary to the service rules governing the petitioner’s employment
- The petitioner’s services should be restored, and the period of relief from duties should be treated as ‘on duty’ for all purposes
For the Respondents
- The respondents, represented by counsel Sri. N.S. Narasimha Swamy, were directed to file a vakalath, indicating their intent to contest the petition
- While no explicit counter-arguments were recorded in the judgment, the respondents were expected to justify the termination order based on applicable service regulations
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the issue was squarely covered by the order passed in W.P.No.18131/2025, disposed of on 22.09.2025. The coordinate bench had already adjudicated a similar matter, establishing that employees in the petitioner’s position were entitled to continue in service until the age of 60, subject to applicable rules and regulations.
The Court emphasized the principle of stare decisis, holding that the precedent in W.P.No.18131/2025 was binding on the present case. It further noted that the termination order dated 29.05.2026 was inconsistent with the service rules and the earlier judgment, rendering it liable to be quashed.
"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. The period from the date of relieving the petitioner from duties till he is taken back to duties shall be considered as 'on duty' for all the purposes."
The Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:
- A writ of certiorari was ordered, quashing the memorandum dated 29.05.2026 (Annexure-B)
- The petitioner was entitled to continue in service until he attains the age of 60, subject to applicable rules and regulations
- The period from the date of relieving the petitioner from duties until his reinstatement was to be treated as ‘on duty’ for all purposes
What This Means For Similar Cases
Precedent Binding on Service Continuation Disputes
- The judgment reinforces the principle that coordinate bench decisions are binding on subsequent cases involving similar facts and legal issues
- Employees and employers must ensure compliance with service rules governing superannuation and continuation of service beyond the standard retirement age
Period of Relief Treated as ‘On Duty’
- The Court’s direction to treat the period of relief from duties as ‘on duty’ has significant implications for:
- Pension calculations and other retirement benefits
- Seniority and promotions during the period of dispute
- Salary and allowances for the duration of the relief period
Practical Steps for Employers and Employees
- Employers must review termination orders to ensure they align with applicable service rules and judicial precedents
- Employees facing arbitrary termination can seek reinstatement by relying on coordinate bench judgments, provided the facts are substantially similar
- Legal practitioners should cite binding precedents to strengthen arguments in service-related disputes
