Age of superannuation for Central Silk Board employees is sixty years based on parity and judicial precedent.

The applicant, Hasan Mondal Sk., was employed as a Skilled Farm Worker (SFW) with Temporary Status at the Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute under the Central Silk Board

The respondents issued a Memorandum dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure A-1) seeking to prematurely retire the applicant from service on 15.05.2025 upon his attaining the age of 58 years

The applicant challenged this memorandum, contending that similarly situated employees in the same organization had their retirement age enhanced to 60 years following various judicial pronouncements, and the denial of same to the applicant was discriminatory

An interim order dated 23.03.2026 had previously stayed the applicant’s release from service pending the final disposal of the application

Whether the applicant, being similarly situated to employees who have already been granted enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60 years via judicial orders, can be legally denied the same benefit by the respondents

The Tribunal primarily relied on the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

It applied the precedent set by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 18693/2014, which upheld a CGIT award enhancing the retirement age of Central Silk Board employees from 58 to 60 years

It further followed the ruling in V. Nirmala vs. Central Silk Board (WP No. 26044 of 2024), which declared the superannuation age as 60 years for timescale farm workers

identified the binding nature of prior coordinate bench decisions such as O.A. 061/0043/2020 (CAT Jammu Bench)

The Tribunal noted that the controversy was no longer res integra (a settled point of law) given the consistent rulings by the Karnataka High Court and various Benches of the CAT

The court found that the applicant belongs to the exact same category and establishment as the employees who had already received the benefit of retirement at age 60

The respondents failed to provide any "intelligible differentia" or lawful distinction to justify treating the applicant differently

The Tribunal reasoned that the mere pendency of "clarification" petitions by the respondents does not dissolve the binding effect of existing judicial pronouncements

Applying the "Rule of Law" to the facts, the court determined that forcing the applicant to retire at 58 while others continued until 60 constituted "hostile discrimination" and an arbitrary exercise of power

The Original Application was allowed, and the impugned Memorandum dated 29.04.2025 was quashed. The respondents were directed to allow the applicant to continue in service until the age of 60 with all consequential service benefits. It was ordered that monetary benefits for the intervening period would depend on the final outcome of any pending proceedings in superior forums, and the entire exercise must be completed within eight weeks