Back
Karnataka High Court
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY
H. Subba Rao - Appellant
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India - Respondent
Writ Petn. No. 5060 of 1975
Decided On : 01/21/1976
Date of Birth - Employment Dispute - Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Section 13(3)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, contested the Corporation's decision to retire him based on his date of birth. He claimed that the Corporation had recorded his incorrect date of birth and sought to change it to 15-6-1917. The dispute arose when the Corporation refused to accept the school certificate as proof of his date of birth and insisted on a birth certificate from the Registration Authorities, which the petitioner was unable to produce. The petitioner then approached the Magistrate under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, to issue a direction to register his date of birth as 15-6-1917. The Magistrate granted the request, but the Corporation refused to accept the new date.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the Corporation was justified in relying on the date of birth recorded in the Service Register and the petitioner's insurance policies, which had the support of his horoscope. The court held that the Corporation's decision not to change the date of birth entry was within its competence, and a writ of mandamus could not be issued to compel the Corporation to change its decision. The court also rejected the petitioner's claim for a writ of certiorari to quash the decision to retire him based on the recorded date of birth.
Issues: The issues involved the acceptance of the petitioner's claimed date of birth, the authority of the Corporation to rely on the recorded date of birth, and the legal effect of the Magistrate's direction under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Corporation's decision to rely on the recorded date of birth was justified, and a writ of mandamus could not be issued to compel a change in the decision. The court also determined that the Magistrate's direction under Section 13(3) of the Act did not bind the Corporation and did not carry higher probative value.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, but the court clarified that the dismissal would not prevent the petitioner from seeking redress through other legal procedures.
ORDER:- 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 Company Ltd., While joining service, he had given his date of birth as 6-2-1916'. The service records maintained by his employer were 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 correct date of birth as 15-6-1917.
2. The dispute arose in this way:
By letter dated 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 on 16-10-1968 to the same effect. Thereafter, the petitioner produced the school certificate in which his date of birth was entered as 15-6-1917. The Corporation did not accept that certificate. 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 dated 11-1-1971, pleaded his inability to produce such certificate on the ground that he was born 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 12-3-1971, the Corporation informed the petitioner that it was unable to accept the changed date of birth submitted by him. The petitioner, however, pressed his claim repeatedly. On 26/29-6-1971, 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 yielded no positive result.
3. The petitioner, thereupon, took a very ingenious course. He approached the Magistrate, under Section 13 (3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, ('the Act'), requesting the Magistrate to issue a direction to the Registrar of 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 the School in which the petitioner studied and also the affidavits of the petitioner and his father's sister's son and observed that 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 of birth of 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 birth as 6-2-1916.
You will therefore please note that you will retire from the service of the Corporation on 6-2-76, as per our notice dated 17-5-1975 issued to you."
4. The petitioner has, now, moved this Court under Article 226, praying for the following two reliefs:
(i) A writ in the nature of certiorari any other appropriate writ or order quashing the decision of the Corporation: and
(ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Corporation not to retire him from service on the ground of superannuation until 15-6-1977.
He has also prayed for a direction against the Corporation to enter his date of birth as 15-6-1
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
