JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was an employee of the Indian Mutual Life Association Limited, whose business was transferred to the newly established Life Insurance Corporation of India with effect from 1-9-1956, on the nationalisation of the Life Insurance business on 19-1-56. After the nationalisation of the life insurance business in terms of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 services of the petitioner were transferred to the Life Insurance Corporation of India, governed by Section 11 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1956) and the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations of 1960'). In terms of the Regulations of 1960 he was supposed to continue till he attained the age of 60 years. The petitioner received a letter dated 18.10.1986 (Ex. 10) from the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India. informing him that he will be completing his age of 58 years on 19.12.1987 and shall retire from the service of the Corporation with effect from 19.12.1987. The petitioner immediately replied to the said letter, informing that since he was a transferred employee, his retirement age is 60 years, and therefore, he will continue till 19.12.1989. The Corporation replied to his letter. vide Ex. 12. asking the petitioner to furnish them a copy of the appointment letter supposed to have been issued by the Indian Mutual Life Association Ltd. Petitioner, in reply to the same, furnished photocopies of certain documents in support of his contention. The petitioner was served with yet another letter dated 23.4.1987 (Ex. 14) informing him that he shall retire from service w.e.f. 19.12.1987. The petitioner also filed another representation on 18th May, 1987 (Annexure-15). In continuation of this representation, he submitted another letter on 4th July, 1987 (Ex. 16). The petitioner also preferred an appeal under Regulation 47-1-A of the Regulations of 1960 on 19.8.87 (Ex. 17). The petitioner was served with another revised notice dated 28.7.87 (Ex. 19) along with forwarding letter dated 8.8.87 (Ex. 18), asking the petitioner to retire from 31.12.87 instead of 19.12.87. The petitioner submitted reminders on 14.9.87 Ex. 20) and 20.10.87 (Ex. 21) but did not receive any reply and therefore, he had to file the present writ petition on 17.11.1987. 2. 19) along with forwarding letter dated 8.8.87 (Ex. 18), asking the petitioner to retire from 31.12.87 instead of 19.12.87. The petitioner submitted reminders on 14.9.87 Ex. 20) and 20.10.87 (Ex. 21) but did not receive any reply and therefore, he had to file the present writ petition on 17.11.1987. 2. Notice was issued to show cause as to why the writ petition be not admitted and decided, on 23.11.1987. A reply (objections against admission of the writ petition) has been filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation, to which a rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the case. 4. The petitioner was appointed as a Branch Secretary for Delhi State from 1.1.1955 on a salary of Rs. 100/- per month plus an allowance of Rs. 75/- per month, vide Ex. 1 dated 11.2.1955. The factum of appointment of the petitioner was further ratified by another letter of the General Secretary of Indian Mutual Life Association Ltd. Madras, vide letter dated 11.2.1955 (Ex. 2). The petitioner received a letter dated 2nd April, 1955 (Ex. 3) from the General Secretary, which at last. show that the petitioner was an employee of Indian Mutual Life Association Ltd. The petitioner has produced yet another letter (Ex. 4), dated 17.4.1956, from the Manager of the Indian Mutual Life Association Limited, stating therein that the petitioner has been allowed a salary of Rs. 200/- plus conveyance allowance of Rs. 100/- per month with effect from 1.1.1956. Ex. 5 is the memo dated 18.4.1956 signed by some Accountant, enclosing therewith a cheque on account of his pay etc. to the petitioner. Ex. 6 is the letter addressed by the Division Manager of Indian Mutual Life Association Ltd. dated 20.4.1956, to the petitioner informing him that the Custodian had been pleased to make an increment in his salary to Rs. 300/- and a conveyance allowance of Rs. 100/- per month i. e. total increment of Rs. 225/- in his salary and allowances. Ex. 7 is yet another letter addressed by the Assistant Manager of Indian Mutual Life Association Ltd., to the petitioner, on May 4, 1956 acknowledging his letter addressed to Shri T.S. Swaminathan, Custodian, and asking him to fill up the enclosed form and submit the same direct to Mr. K. R. Puri, Custodian, Rubi General. Ex. Ex. 7 is yet another letter addressed by the Assistant Manager of Indian Mutual Life Association Ltd., to the petitioner, on May 4, 1956 acknowledging his letter addressed to Shri T.S. Swaminathan, Custodian, and asking him to fill up the enclosed form and submit the same direct to Mr. K. R. Puri, Custodian, Rubi General. Ex. 8 is a letter dated 5.10.56 addressed by the Assistant Senior Other r of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, to the Divisional Manager, L.I.C certifying the salary drawn by the petitioner as per the record of the unit. Ex. 9 is another letter dated 11.10 1956 addressed by the Divisional Manager; L.I.C. to the petitioner informing him that he has been provisionally posted in the Branch Office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, situated at Unit No. 4. 5. In the objections filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been submitted that it is doubtful as to whether Ex. 1 to Ex. 7 really relate to the petitioner or someone else, because in the document Ex. 1. Ex. 3 and Ex. 7, reference is to Jagjeet Singh Esq. and not as Jagjeet Singh Walia whereas in Ex. 2, Ex. 4., Ex. 5 and Ex. 6, there is a reference only to Jagjeet Singh. We do not find any force in this contention of the respondent because this is a fact that after the enactment of 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, the whole business of Indian Mutual Life Association Ltd. was transferred to the Life 'Insurance Corporation of India and the record relating prior to nationalisation of insurance business, must have also been transferred to the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The petitioner had sent copies of some of these letters to the respondent along with his letter dated 17.4 87 (Ex. 13) and there was sufficient time for the respondent to find out about the vara city of these documents Merely asserting that genuineness of these documents is disputed, is not enough. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner was initially working with Indian Mutual Life Association Ltd. and after the nationalisation of insurance business, he had been working as an employee of the respondent Corporation. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner was initially working with Indian Mutual Life Association Ltd. and after the nationalisation of insurance business, he had been working as an employee of the respondent Corporation. The respondent Corporation has not been able to produce the original appointment letter of the petitioner, by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, to show that he was appointed as an employee by the L.I.C. and had not come on transfer from Indian Mutual Life Association Ltd. on the nationalisation of the insurance business. The respondent Corporation has placed reliance on service record of the petitioner (E.R 1) which shows that the date of appointment of the petitioner in the Life Corporation of India was 1.9.1956. The petitioner in his letter dated 17.4.87 (Ex. 13) had also requested the respondent Corporation to send him a copy of the appointment letter dated 1.9.1956, if it was at all issued but in spite of that, the respondent Corporation has not been able to produce any such letter in this Court. Ex. R-1 shows that this is a proforma printed sometime in June, 1962 and therefore, it is obvious that record of the petitioner must have been F' re pared only after June, 1962 and not on 1.9.56 Ex. R-l further shows that the petitioner was to get a sum of Rs. 290/- as his salary including increment and in addition to DA. Rs. 70/- and other allowances of Rs. 100/- as from 1.1.58. The respondent Corporation has also brought to our notice Ex. R-2 and Ex. R-3, staff record of other employees, to show that these two employees were from other insurance Co. and had come as transferred employees. This staff record has been prepared in the proforma which was printed in July, 1956 and the columns of Ex. R-1 are quite different from that of Ex. R-2 and Ex. R-3. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the Staff Regulations as also the Schedule annexed therewith giving the proforma of the Staff Record. The petitioner later on also produced letter dated 7.11.1987 (Ex. 22) by which his representation dated 19.8.87 was rejected. In rejoinder, the petitioner has further produced another letter (Ex. 23) dated 10.6.1955, by the Branch Manager addressed to the petitioner and still another letter Ex. The petitioner later on also produced letter dated 7.11.1987 (Ex. 22) by which his representation dated 19.8.87 was rejected. In rejoinder, the petitioner has further produced another letter (Ex. 23) dated 10.6.1955, by the Branch Manager addressed to the petitioner and still another letter Ex. R-24 addressed by P. Santhanam, Manager of I.M.L.A. dated 23.12.1955, to support his contention that he was an employee of Indian Mutual Life Association Ltd. before the nationalisation of the insurance business and incorporation of the respondent Corporation. Along with his affidavit in rejoinder, the petitioner also submitted a photostat copy of the Life Insurance Corporation Field Officers' (Alteration of Remuneration and Other Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1957 (Ex. 25) and yet another document, Life Insurance Corporation of India (Fixation of Pay and Allowances of Field Officers) Regulations, 1958, in support of his contention that as per Regulation 7(3) of the Order of 1951 (Ex. 25), he was given increment as mentioned in Ex. R-1. He has also brought to our notice Para 85 of the Report on the Activities of the Life Insurance Corporation of India during the period 1.9.1956 to 31.12.1957 as quoted in his affidavit. 7. Having given our thoughtful consideration, we are of the opinion that the petitioner was originally an employee of the Indian Mutual Life Association Ltd. and after the nationalisation, of life insurance business, he became a transferred employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, and therefore, he was entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years, in accordance with the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act and the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. 8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the orders dated 8.8.87 and 28.7.87 (Ex. 18 and 19) retiring the petitioner w.e.f. 31.12 87 are hereby quashed, and the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. He will be deemed to be continued in service throughout. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition Allowed. *******