In a writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court by a Union representing Class III and Class IV employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C.) in the North Zone, having its headquarters at Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, against the entrustment of census duties upon employees of L.I.C, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak dismissed the petition.
The petitioner submitted that L.I.C. employees did not fall within the definition of ‘local authorities’ as defined under Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and that entrusting census duties upon them was wholly unsustainable in law. However, the Union argued that L.I.C. was within the ambit of a ‘commercial establishment’ and therefore, engaging its staff for census operations was well within the domain of the Census Act, 1948.
The Court stated that the issue in the present matter was whether L.I.C. employees could legally be engaged as Enumerators/Supervisors to perform census work and perused provisions of the Census Act. It was noted that, in exercising powers under Section 4(2), the State Government issued a Notification dated 09-01-2026, appointing officers as Census Officers with various designations. The Court found that pursuant to this, the Zonal Officer, in exercise of delegated power under Section 4(4) read with Rule 3 of the 1990 Rules, issued orders to appoint L.I.C. officials as Enumerators/Supervisors.
The Court referred to Section 6 and stated that it permitted the administration to enlist personnel from the corporate and industrial sectors for census work, and that it was crucial for efficiently covering the organised-sector workforce and the institutional population. It was found that this reflected the legislative intent to leverage the extension of the administrative hierarchy in the private sector for public duties during census operations, and that failure to comply with the same could lead to penal consequences. Reference was also made to Section 7 and Rule 3 of the 1990 Rules.
After perusing a tabulation in the said Rules, the Court stated that any teacher, clerk, official, or any suitable person could be appointed as Enumerator. It was stated that no distinction had been drawn in this rule between the clerks or officials of a local body, institution, or establishment and others. The Court stated that the word “any person,” as against the designation “Enumerator,” had a wider connotation and could not be confined only to government employees or officials of local authorities. Hence, the Court held that the Zonal Officer was competent to issue orders commanding L.I.C. employees to act as Enumerators/Supervisors for census work.
The Court stated that persons engaged in the execution of census duties are deemed to be public servants within the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and that any neglect on their part would be punishable under the Census Act read with the IPC. It was clarified by a conjoint reading of Sections 4, 4-A, 6(1)(e), and 7(c) of the Census Act, together with Rule 3 of the 1990 Rules, that an employee of any establishment could legally be engaged in census duties. The Court stated that Sections like 6 and 7 of the Census Act balance compulsory public duty with particular administration for a massive exercise like the Indian census.
Further, the Court stated that the term ‘establishment’ had not been narrowly defined under the Census Act and, in ordinary parlance, included commercial establishments such as L.I.C. Thus, the Court opined that the Zonal Officer had not committed an error or illegality in directing L.I.C. employees to discharge duties as Enumerators/Supervisors to facilitate the work of census operations. It was also said that the writ petition only had a vague prayer seeking quashing of the decision to engage L.I.C. employees for census work, and no specific challenge was made to any particular order.
Thus, the writ petition was dismissed.
