( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('the Corporation' ). Before the Corporation was formed, he was employed in the Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Co Ltd. While joining service, he had given his date of birth as 6-2-1976'. The service records maintained by his employer was forwarded to the Corporation when his services were taken over by the latter. Now, it has been notified that he shall retire on attaining the age of superannuation at 60 years. That date is not far off. It falls on 6-2-1976. The petitioner challenges the said Notification by contending that the Corporation has failed to record his cerrect date of birth as 16-6-1917.

( 2 ) THE dispute arose in this way: By letter dt. 14/ 17-9-1968, the Corporation asked the petitioner to submit the school or college certificate in proof of his age and educational qualification. A reminder was issued an 16-10-1968 to the same effect. Thereafter, the petitioner produced the school certificate in which his date of birth was envered as 15-6-1967. The corporation did not accept that certificae. It wanted to know the basis upon which the said entry was made in the school register. On 6-1-1971, it asked the petitioner to submit a birth certificate from the Registration authorities at the place of birth. The petitioner, by his reply dt. 11-1-1971, pleaded his inability to produce such certificate on the ground that he was bcrn in a small village about 55 years ago and, at that place, there was no system of recording the births and deaths by Statutory Authorities. On l2-3-1971,, the Corporation informed the petitioner that it was unable to accept the changed date of birth submitted by him. The petitioner, how ever, pressed has claim repeatedly. On 26|29-b"-l971, the Corporation again reiterated that the Central Office of the Corporation was unable to reconsider the matter on the basis of the school certificate without the basis upon which the said entry was made. Further correspondence on the matter yrelacd no positive result.

( 3 ) THE petitioner, thereupon, took a very ingenious course. He approached the Magistrate, under Sec. 13i (3) of the Registration of Births and deaths Act 1969 (the Act'), requesting the Magistrate to issue a direction to the Registrar cf Births and Deaths, Bangalore, to register the date of his birth as 15-6-1917'. On that application, the Magistrate made a summary enquiry. He considered the certificate issued by the Head Master of theschool in which the petitioner studied and also the affidavit of the petitioner and his father's sister's son and observed that evidence was quite natural and probable to hold that the petitioner was born on 15-6-1917. Accordingly, he directed the Registrar to register the said date as the date cf birth on the petitioner in the relevant register. In obedience to the said "direction, the Registrar entered the said date in the register maintained for the purpose. The petitioner, on receiving a copy of the said entry, produced the same before the Corporation, with a request to accept it. The Corporation, however, refused to admit the said date, by stating thus :"the matter was considered by our Central Office and it has not been found necessary to revise our decision already taken to admit your date of both as 6-2-1916. You will therefore please note that you will retire from the service of the Corporation on 6-2-1976, as per our notice dt. 17-5-75 issued to you. "

( 4 ) THE petitioner has, now, moved this Court under Art. 226, praying for the following two reliefs : (i) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any ether appropriate writ or order quashing the decision of the Corporation; and (ii) A writ in the nature cf mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Corporation not to retire him from service on the ground, cf superannuation until 15-6-1977. He has also prayed for a direction against the Corporation to enter his date of birth as 15-6-1917' in his serv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document