- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:512-DB WA No. 408 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO.408 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. H. SHIVA RAO AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, NO.1080, 42ND CROSS, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, I STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 078 RETIRED AS BRANCH HEAD IN THIRD RESPONDENT COMPANY, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 8-107, OASIS NINE APARTMENT 7TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, ISRO LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 078 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUBRAHMANYA P D DATTATRAY HEGDE., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, MUMBAI - 400 001 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, ASSOCIATE BANKS DEPARTMENT, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:512-DB WA No. 408 of 2025 3. SBI DFHI LTD. REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE VOLTAS HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR, 23, J. N. HERADIA MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI - 400 001 REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO, PRESENTLY AT MISTRY BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR, 122, DINSHAW VACHA ROAD CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI - 400 020 4. MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SBI DFHI LTD. VOLTAS HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR, 23, J. N. HERADIA MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI - 400 001 PRESENTLY AT MISTRY BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR, 122, DINSHAW VACHA ROAD CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI - 400 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KUSHBOO KAPUR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJESH VELLAKATT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. T.P.MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2024 MADE IN W.P.NO.20815/2014 (S-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REJECTING THE PRAYER MADE BY THE APPELLANT FOR GRANT OF COMPENSATION EQUAL TO SALARY FOR LOSS OF SERVICE DUE TO PREMATURE RETIREMENT, BY NOTIONALLY RESTORING THE SERVICE TILL THE SUPERANNUATION AGE OF 60 YEARS, AS PRAYED FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:512-DB WA No. 408 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. The appeal has been filed by the appellant./petitioner impugning the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.20815/2014. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the petition for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner after retirement from the service, filed the writ petition for the post of staff officer grade-A as enumerated in the impugned order. The petitioner got retired from the service of respondent Bank on 31.07.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years as provided under the Rules of respondent No.3- SBI - DFHI Limited. 4. The petitioner was initially appointed on 14/03/1973 in Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in the cadre of Clerk Grade- II/C.N.Ex. Grade-II. The petitioner was promoted to that effect from 07.08.1987. He was working as a Staff Officer Grade 'A' post in the entity called "Discount and Finance - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:512-DB WA No. 408 of 2025 House of India Limited" (hereinafter referred to as the DFHI) and it was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 08.03.1988. This new entity was subsidiary of RBI and now, it is the subsidiary of State Bank of India. The petitioner was sent on deputation to DFHI by the order dated 09.02.1991. He completed two years deputation in DFHI in 1993. However, his deputation was extended till 07.06.1995. 5. On 01.01.2007, the DFHI was amalgamated as a subsidiary of SBI and its associate Banks. The SBI and the other nationalized banks as well as financial institutions have majority share holding in DFHI. The petitioner was absorbed in DFHI on 15.05.1995. On 07.07.1995, the petitioner took voluntary retirement from the 1st respondent - RBI as per the terms of the letter of offer. It may be taken note that the petitioner is getting pension from the RBI. 6. The contention of the petitioner before the learned single Judge was that the age of superannuation in the banking sector was 58 years when the petitioner accepted the offer to be absorbed in DFHI. Thereafter, the Rule relating to superannuation was changed in the banking industry, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:512-DB WA No. 408 of 2025 extending service upto 60 years of age. As per the terms of absorption, in terms and conditions of employment in RBI and in terms of the DFHI Staff Rules, 1988 the petitioner should have retired from the age of 60 years and not on attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner therefore, claimed as retirement age should be postponed and he should be paid consequential benefits including the salary for two years. 7. Having taken note of the offer letter dated 08.05.1995 seeking option of the petitioner for absorption in DFHI and terms and conditions of such absorption would provide that the age of superannuation was 58 years except incase of employees in Class IV as their age of superannuation is 60 years. 8. It is not in dispute that in terms of DFHI Staff Rules, the age of superannuation for the employees is 58 years and these Rules are not under challenge by the petitioner. 9. The petitioner had retired from the service on 19.10.2010 and he filed the writ petition in the year 2014 challenging the superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:512-DB WA No. 408 of 2025 10. The petitioner became the employee of DFHI after he had taken voluntary retirement from the RBI and the terms and conditions of the employment of DFHI would be as provided in the Staff Rules. Even as per the offer letter dated 08.05.1995, it was specifically provided that the superannuation age would be 58 years, except for the class - IV employees. Therefore, the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single judge. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. Any pending application also stands disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29