LIC Employees Legally Bound To Perform Census Duties, Requisition Of Staff From Commercial Establishments Valid: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the deployment of Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C.) personnel for national census operations, clarifying that the statutory framework permits the mobilization of staff from commercial establishments for census duties.

It was held that a conjoint and harmonious reading of Sections 4, 4-A, 6(1)(e), and 7(c) of the Census Act, 1948, along with Rule 3 of the Census Rules, 1990, leaves no room for ambiguity that employees of any organized establishment can be legally engaged as Enumerators or Supervisors.

The Court emphasized that once such personnel are requisitioned or appointed by a competent authority, they are under a strict statutory obligation to discharge their assigned functions, failing which they attract penal consequences under the law.

The Bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak observed, "Conjoint reading of Section 4, 4-A, 6(1)(e), 7(c) of the Act, 1948 read with Rule 3 of the Rules, 1990 leaves no room for doubt that employee of any establishment can legally be engaged for census duties. Once appointed or directed, they are under the statutory obligation to perform such duty, which is treated as a public duty under the Act, 1948. The expression 'any official or any person' employed in Rule 3 is of wide amplitude and cannot be restricted only to employees of local authority or government departments. Further, Section 7(c) specifically contemplates assistance by officers and members of staff of any factory, firm or establishment for the purposes of census operations."

Advocate Raunak Singh appeared for the Petitioner, while ASG Krishna Deo Rai appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a Union representing Class III and Class IV employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C.) in the North Central Zone, filed a writ petition challenging the assignment of census duties to L.I.C. employees. The grievance arose from an order issued by the competent authority requisitioning the services of these employees to perform census operations as Enumerators and Supervisors.

Contention of the Petitioner

The Petitioner argued that under Section 4-A of the Census Act, 1948, the administration could only requisition the employees of local authorities for conducting census operations. It was vehemently contended that L.I.C. employees did not fall within the definition of "local authorities" as prescribed under Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Consequently, the entrustment of census duties upon them was bad in law, coram non judice (without jurisdiction), and wholly unsustainable.

Contention of the Respondents

The Union of India countered that Section 4-A of the Census Act, 1948, could not be read in isolation and had to be interpreted harmoniously with Sections 6(1)(e) and 7(c) of the said Act. It was argued that the L.I.C. fell within the definition of a 'commercial establishment'. Since the Act explicitly contemplated the engagement of employees from firms, factories, and establishments for census work, the requisition was well within the domain of law. The respondent further contended that Rule 3 of the Census Rules, 1990, provided a wide discretion to the authorities. The corresponding tabulation for appointing "Enumerators" widely included "teachers, clerks or any official or any person", thereby validating the choice of L.I.C. staff.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed that the core issue for adjudication fell within a narrow compass, specifically whether the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C.) could legally be engaged as Enumerators or Supervisors for conducting census operations. The Court noted that "Census" falls under Entry 69 of List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, read with Article 246 thereof, thereby vesting exclusive legislative competence in the Parliament to govern the entire process through the Census Act, 1948.

The Court observed that Section 4 of the Census Act, 1948, provides for the appointment of census staff, while Section 4-A mandates that the staff of local authorities be made available for census work. It was further noted that the State Government, in exercise of its statutory powers, delegated the authority to appoint census officers to the Zonal Officer. Consequently, the Zonal Officer acted within his competent jurisdiction when he issued orders appointing L.I.C. officials as Enumerators and Supervisors.

The Court noted that Section 6(1)(e) and Section 7(c) of the Act, 1948, expand the administrative reach of census operations beyond local authorities. Section 6(1)(e) explicitly empowers the administration to enlist corporate, industrial, and commercial personnel, such as managers or officers, to ensure the efficient enumeration of the organized sector workforce. Furthermore, Section 7(c) serves as a wide empowering provision that enables the mobilization of staff from any factory, firm, or establishment to assist in data collection and fieldwork.

The Court observed that the term 'establishment' is not narrowly restricted under the Act, 1948. In ordinary parlance, it includes organized bodies employing persons for official, commercial, industrial, or administrative work, thereby squarely covering a statutory corporation like the L.I.C. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind these provisions was to leverage both public and private sector resources to facilitate a massive national exercise like the decennial census.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the writ petition suffered from a procedural infirmity, as the petitioner had only sought a vague, omnibus relief to quash the general decision to engage L.I.C. employees without laying down a specific challenge to any particular order issued by the competent authority.

The Court observed, "Non-compliance of direction issued to the persons who were engaged in census operation attracts penalties (including under Section 11 of the Act, 1948). These provisions were inserted/amended to strengthen the machinery for large scale operations like decennial census. These sections balance compulsory public duty with particular administration for a massive exercise like the Indian census." 

Ultimately, upon a conjoint and harmonious reading of Sections 4, 4-A, 6(1)(e), and 7(c) of the Act, 1948, along with Rule 3 of the Rules, 1990, the Court observed that the impugned action of the respondent authority was perfectly intra vires and did not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error. Once appointed, such employees are deemed to be public servants under a strict statutory obligation to discharge their assigned public duties, failing which they attract penal consequences under the law.

Cause Title: North Central Zone Insurance Employees v. Union of India and Ors. and other connected matters [Neutral Citation:2026:AHC:123270]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Advocates Raunak Singh and Vikrant Pandey

Respondents: Krishna Deo Rai, A.S.G.I., Ashish Mishra, C.S.C., Siddharth Singhal

Click here to read/download the Order