LIC Employees Can Be Appointed as Census Enumerators, Rules Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a union's challenge to census duty assignments for LIC staff, holding that the Census Act and Rules permit engagement of employees from any establishment, not merely local authorities.
Justice Dinesh Pathak, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, on 29 May 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed by the North Central Zone Insurance Employees Union, which represents Class III and Class IV employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in the North Central Zone headquartered at Kanpur. The union had challenged the entrustment of census duties upon LIC employees as Enumerators and Supervisors for the Census of India, 2027. The court held that a conjoint reading of Section 4, Section 4-A, Section 6(1)(e), and Section 7(c) of the Census Act, 1948, read with Rule 3 of the Census Rules, 1990, leaves no room for doubt that employees of any establishment can legally be engaged for census duties. The petition was dismissed as misconceived and devoid of merits, with no order as to costs.
The Dispute Before the Court
The North Central Zone Insurance Employees Union filed Writ – A No. 7210 of 2026 challenging the orders issued by the Zonal Officer directing LIC employees to serve as Enumerators and Supervisors for census operations. The union's grievance was specific: that only employees of local authorities could be requisitioned under Section 4-A of the Census Act, 1948, and that LIC employees fall outside that category.
The petitioner's counsel, Sri Vikrant Pandey, argued that Section 4-A mandates that staff of every local authority be made available for census work, and that LIC does not qualify as a “local authority” within the meaning of Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The union relied on two judgments: a 2010 ruling of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Union of India and Others (C.W.P. No. 7037 of 2010), and a 2013 ruling of a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. v. Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India (Special Civil Appeal No. 5335 of 2010).
The Union of India, represented by Sri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, countered that Section 4-A cannot be read in isolation. The Union argued that Sections 6(1)(e) and 7(c) of the Act specifically contemplate engagement of employees of commercial establishments, factories, and firms for census work, and that LIC qualifies as a commercial establishment. The Union also pointed out that the order appointing LIC employees as Enumerators and Supervisors, issued by the Zonal Officer under Section 4(4) of the Act, had not itself been challenged in the writ petition. The Union relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 4 March 2011 in Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others v. Municipal Commissioner/Additional Chief Census Officer, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur and Others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28736 of 2010).
The Statutory Framework
The court noted that the subject of “Census” falls under Entry 69 of List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, read with Article 246, giving Parliament exclusive power to legislate on census matters. The Census Act, 1948 governs the entire process of census operations, including appointment of census staff, duties of citizens, penalties for non-compliance, and confidentiality of information.
Section 4 of the Act provides for appointment of census staff. Section 4-A requires every local authority in a State to make available such staff as may be necessary for census duties when directed by the Central Government or an authority appointed by it. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification dated 9 January 2026 appointing officers as Census Officers with various designations. Pursuant to that notification, the Zonal Officer, exercising delegated power under Section 4(4) of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Census Rules, 1990, issued orders appointing LIC officials as Enumerators and Supervisors.
Section 6(1)(e) of the Act empowers the District Magistrate, or any authority appointed by the State Government, to direct every manager or officer of a railway or any commercial or industrial establishment to perform the duties of a census officer in relation to persons under their charge or employed under them. Section 7(c) separately empowers the District Magistrate or authorised authority to call upon all officers and members of staff of any factory, firm, or establishment to give assistance towards the taking of a census. Persons so directed are bound to obey and, while acting under such orders, are deemed public servants under the Indian Penal Code.
Rule 3 of the Census Rules, 1990 sets out the categories of persons who may be appointed as census officers against specified designations. At Serial No. 5 of the tabulation appended to Rule 3, the designation “Enumerator” is listed, and the corresponding category of eligible persons is described as “teachers, clerks or any official or any person.”
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Pathak held that the union's argument, which rested entirely on Section 4-A read with the definition of “local authority” under the General Clauses Act, 1897, was an impermissibly narrow reading of the statutory scheme. Section 4-A, the court held, cannot be read in isolation from the rest of the Act.
The court analysed Section 6(1)(e), observing that it specifically targets managers and officers of commercial and industrial establishments, allowing the administration to enlist corporate sector personnel for census work. This provision, the court noted, reflects a legislative intent to leverage the administrative hierarchy of the private sector for public duties during census operations.
On Section 7(c), the court held that the term “establishment” is not narrowly restricted in the Act and is ordinarily understood to include organised bodies employing persons for official, commercial, industrial, educational, or administrative work. LIC, being a commercial establishment, falls squarely within this description. The court observed that Section 7 complements Section 6 by focusing on “assistance” rather than the full discharge of census officer duties.
Turning to Rule 3 of the Census Rules, 1990, the court held that the expression “any official or any person” in Column 2 against the designation “Enumerator” carries a wider connotation and cannot be confined only to government employees or officials of local authorities. No distinction is drawn in the rule between clerks or officials of local bodies and those of other institutions or establishments. The court concluded that the Authorised Authority and Zonal Officer were therefore competent to issue orders directing LIC employees to act as Enumerators and Supervisors.
The court addressed the Gujarat High Court judgment relied upon by the petitioner, noting that it examined the distinction between appointment of Census Officers under Section 4 and calling for assistance under Section 7, and highlighted limits on compelling staff of public undertakings without proper delegation or procedure. However, the court found that both the Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment and the Gujarat High Court judgment failed to consider the effect of Rule 3 of the Census Rules, 1990 and Section 6(1)(e) of the Act. This gap in reasoning, the court held, rendered those precedents inapplicable to the present controversy.
The court placed significant weight on the 2011 Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others v. Municipal Commissioner/Additional Chief Census Officer, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur and Others, which had already upheld the engagement of LIC employees for census work. The Division Bench had held that LIC employees, working in an “establishment,” are covered by Section 7 of the Act, and that the power to requisition them could be exercised by the District Magistrate or any authority notified by the State Government under Section 4(2). The Division Bench had also directed that requisition should not exceed 25% of available staff within the jurisdiction of the concerned officer, so that the working of the institution itself is not affected.
Justice Pathak reproduced paragraphs 15 and 16 of that Division Bench judgment at length, treating them as binding authority. The Division Bench had observed that “the officers/employees of the writ petitioners would be covered by the expression 'establishment', as they are working in an establishment.”
The court also noted the factual backdrop: the Government of Uttar Pradesh had issued a notification dated 4 February 2026 prescribing the schedule for the first phase of the Census of India, 2027, with house-listing and house census operations to be conducted from 22 May 2026 to 20 June 2026. Census operations were therefore already underway at the time the petition was heard and decided.
On the procedural aspect, the court observed that the writ petition contained only a vague prayer seeking quashing of the decision to engage LIC employees for census work, without any specific challenge to any particular order. The Zonal Officer's order issued under Section 4(4) of the Act had not been challenged at all. The ancillary prayer for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from engaging LIC employees in census operations was equally unsustainable in light of the statutory provisions.
Outcome
Justice Dinesh Pathak dismissed Writ – A No. 7210 of 2026 on 29 May 2026, holding that the Authorised Authority and Zonal Officer had not committed any error or illegality in issuing orders under Section 4(4) of the Census Act, 1948 read with Rule 3 of the Census Rules, 1990, directing LIC employees to discharge duties as Enumerators and Supervisors for census operations. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.