KEDAR NATH LAL Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Kedar Nath Lal, the sole petitioner in this writ application, has obtained a Rule against the Life Insurance Corporation of India, respondent 1, its Zonal Manager and Senior Divisional Manager, respectively respondents 2 and 3 to show cause why the final order of the Chairman of the Corporation communicated in the letter dated 9-12-1971, a copy of which is Annexure 15 to the writ application, written by respondent 3 to the petitioner, be not called up and quashed and why the respondents be not directed to continue to accept the date of birth of the petitioner as 1-4-1914. Cause has been shown on behalf of the respondents by filing a counter-affidavit as also at the time of the hearing of the rule. Facts do not seem to be much in dispute in this case. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company Ltd. on 1-9-1943. The said Insurer, according to the petitioner's case, at the time of confirmation of the petitioner accepted his date of birth as 1-4-1914 on the basis of the horoscope, and some affidavits, as, his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 1-4-1912 in the school records and consequently in the university certificate. The petitioner was confirmed with effect from 1-12-1943.

(2.) The Life Insurance Corporation was created in the year 1956 and the insurance business of the Insurer was taken over by the Corporation with effect from 1-9-1956. Under the Corporation the petitioner was fixed up as Section Head and was later promoted in the rank of Superintendent with effect from 19-2-1962. Since then he had been working in the said capacity. By Annexure 1--a letter dated 28-5-1965--the petitioner was informed by respondent 3 that his date of birth as per his horoscope was 1-4-1914 and that had been noted in the records. In the counter affidavit of the respondents it is stated that the fact mentioned in Annexure 1 was on the basis of the routine entry made before the Corporation took up the matter of verification of entries in the staff records.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that he was surprised to receive the letter dated 6-2-1968 from respondent 3 reopening the question of date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of a certified copy of the certificate of the Patna University, according to which his date of birth came to be 1-4-1912. By this letter the petitioner was asked to submit his original university certificate. Another letter dated 14-12-1968 (Annexure 3) by way of reminder was written by the Divisional Manager where it was also stated that the Patna Divisional Office had admitted his date of birth as 1st April, 1912 in its record as per instructions of the Zonal Office, Calcutta. The petitioner gave his reply dated 17-5-1969, a copy of which is Annexure 4, expressing his inability to produce the original Matriculation Certificate. The Divisional Manager by his letter dated 27-5-1969 (Annexure 5), communicated to the petitioner that the Central Officer, Bombay, had decided that even in cases of members of the Oriental Pension Fund, verification of the date of birth should be done afresh with reference to Matriculation/School Certificate only. The final decision taken by the Patna Divisional Office in pursuance of the said instructions was communicated to the petitioner that his date of birth had been taken as 1-4-1912. The petitioner filed representation dated 12-5-1970 (Annexure 6) to challenge the decision contained in Annexure 5. This was treated as an appeal to Zonal Manager. And, from the Zonal Office, Calcutta, certain document were asked for by letter dated 21-8-1970 (Annexure 7). The petitioner gave his reply dated 3-12-1970 (Annexure 8), expressing his inability to produce the documents. The petitioner's representation was forwarded by the Zonal Office to the Central Office. The latter advised the former to draw the petitioner's attention to the Chairman's "Instruction's (LIC of India, verification of date of birth of employees) (sic) Instructions 1970 requiring all employees to produce documentary proof for the purpose of verifying their date of birth". Original Matriculation Certificate, original horoscope and copy of the birth certificate were asked for by the letter (Annexure 9). The petitioner gave his reply (Annexure 10). Some more correspondence followed, and then by letter dated 10-8-1971 (Annexure 13) written by respondent 3 the petitioner was intimated that the Central Office has accepted his date of birth as 1-4-1912 on the strength of the certificate from the Registrar, Patna University, dated the 6th May, 1971. A copy of the said certificate is Annexure A to the counter-affidavit. Accordingly, by Annexure 13, the petitioner was informed that his date of retirement fell due on 1st April, 1972. Then followed the letter dated 17-8-1971 (Annexure 14) informing the petitioner that he would be attaining superannuation age and retiring from service with effect from 1-1-1972 and giving him option to apply for leave preparatory to retirement. The petitioner states in Paragraph 27 of the writ application that on 21st of September, 1971 he preferred an appeal against the order of alteration of his date of birth in his service record under Staff Regulation of 1960 to the Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Bombay. The said appeal was finally rejected by the order of the Chairman communicated in the Patna Divisional Office letter dated 9-12-1971 (Annexure 15). Shortly put, the Corporation accepted the petitioner's date of birth as 1-4-1912 on the basis of the Matriculation Certificate while the petitioner wanted the previous acceptance of his date of birth, i.e. 1-4-1914 to continue.