Karnataka High Court
The Regional Director vs Smt C Sathyakumari on 18 February, 2022
Bench: P S Kumar, Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.3477 OF 2015 (S-RES)
BETWEEN :
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. K. KASTURI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. TEJASWINI, ADVOCATE)
[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]
AND :
SMT. C. SATHYAKUMARI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ASST. MANAGER
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
BANGALORE-560 001 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI. N.G. PHADKE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.16642/2014 DATED
13.07.2015.
2
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
P.S. DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
Reserve Bank of India1 has presented this appeal
challenging the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge
dated July 13, 2015 in W.P. No.16642/2014.
2. Heard Shri. K. Kasturi, learned Senior
Advocate and Shri. N.G.Phadke, learned Advocate for
respondent.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be
referred as per their status in the writ petition.
4. Brief facts of the case are, writ petitioner
joined RBI as a Clerk-cum-Bar Coin Note examiner on
February 25, 1982. She approached the learned VIII
ACMM2, Bengaluru in Misc. No.5912/2011, for a direction
against the BBMP3 to record her Date of birth as November
'RBI' for short
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
18, 1957 and succeeded in her case. With the said order,
she approached the RBI to change her Date of birth in
Bank records. By its order dated February 20, 2013, the
RBI has rejected her request. Feeling aggrieved, she has
filed the instant writ petition and the same has been
allowed by the impugned order, directing the RBI to record
petitioner's Date of birth as November 18, 1957. Hence,
this writ appeal.
5. Shri. Kasturi urged the following contentions
in support of this appeal:
• Firstly, that petitioner is governed by the Reserve
Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 and the
Administrative Circulars issued from time to time to
give effect to the Regulations. As per para 8.1 of
RBI's Master Circular, the Date of birth mentioned in
the School Leaving Certificate is considered as
conclusive evidence.
• Secondly, in C.Misc. No.5912/2011, filed in the
Magistrate's Court, RBI is not made as a party and
direction is against sole respondent therein namely,
the BBMP;
• Thirdly, the law on the point has been settled in Life
Insurance Corporation of India and Others Vs.
R. Basavaraju Alias Basappa4;
• Fourthly, the writ petitioner has approached RBI in
the fag end of her service.
6. Shri. Vikram Phadke, learned Advocate for
respondent argued in support of the impugned order.
7. We have carefully considered rival contentions
and perused the records.
8. There is no dispute with regard to facts
recorded hereinabove. The only point for consideration is,
whether RBI is bound by the order passed by the learned
CMM in Crl. Misc. 5921/2011?.
9. In LIC Vs. Basavaraju, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India has held as follows:
(2016)15 SCC 781 (paras 5 and 9)
"5. The law with regard to correction of date of
birth has been time and again discussed by this Court
and held that once the date of birth is entered in the
service record, as per the educational certificates and
accepted by the employee, the same cannot be
changed. Not only that, this Court has also held that a
claim for change in date of birth cannot be
entertained at the fag end of retirement.
6. xxxx
7. xxxx
8. xxxx
9. As noticed above, the respondent filed a suit for
declaration with regard to his date of birth without
impleading the appellant, who is the employer, and
has obtained the decree against the persons, who
have no concern with the date of birth of the
respondent. It goes without saying that the said
decree obtained by the respondent is not binding on
the appellant being not a party to the suit."
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. Admittedly, writ petitioner was due to retire on
November 17, 2015. She has approached the RBI in the
fag end of her service, with her representation dated
December 28, 2012 annexing order in Crl. Misc.
No.5921/2011.
11. Petitioner is governed by RBI staff regulations,
RBI was not a party in the proceedings before the learned
Magistrate. Petitioner has approached the RBI at the fag
end of her service.
12. In view of undisputed facts and law laid down
in LIC Vs. Basavaraju, this appeal merits consideration.
Hence, the following order:
(a) Writ appeal is allowed;
(b) Order dated July 13, 2015 in
W.P. No.16642/2014 is set-aside; and
(c) Writ petition is dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS
