JUDGMENT : P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. 1. The respondents in OP(CAT) 168/2014 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal are the petitioners in this Original Petition. The Original Petition was filed by the respondent/applicant herein for a declaration that the nonfeasance on the part of the respondent to include the name of K.Sathyabhama as the applicant's wife, as a family pension beneficiary and for all other purpose like post retirement benefits, medical treatments etc is arbitrary, discriminatory contrary to law and unconstitutional. There were also other consequential reliefs also prayed for . 2. The case of the respondent/applicant before the Tribunal is that he is a retired railway employee, who superannuated on 31.12.2012, while working as Goods Guard(Traffic). According to the respondent/applicant, he married Smt.K.Sathyabhama, the elder sister of his wife late Sreedevi who died on 31.12.2011. Thereafter respondent /applicant submitted an application before the authorities, with a request to change the nominee in his service records. Death certificate of his first wife Sreedevi and marriage certificate evidencing his marriage with K.Sathyabhama were also produced along with the application. The grievance of the applicant is that, no action is taken by the authorities based on his request, eventhough he submitted all the documents before the authorities. In such circumstances, the above Original Application was filed before the Tribunal. 3. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners herein, who are respondents before the Tribunal, took a stand that the application of the respondent/applicant cannot be considered because, he has failed to produce the death certificate of the first husband of K.Sathyabhama. The admitted case of the applicant was that, the husband of K.Sathyabhama passed away on 7.2.1983 and the relatives of K.Sathyabhama had unwittingly failed to register his death. According to the petitioners/respondents, the failure of K.Sathyabhama and her relatives to register the death of her husband is a violation of statutory provisions contained in the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. As per Rule 21 of the Railway Servants Conduct Rules, 1966, no railway servant shall enter into a contract of marriage with a person having a spouse living. When there is such a provision in the Rules, the petitioner/respondent insists that a death certificate of the husband of K.Sathyabhama, who is the present wife of the respondent/applicant, be produced for entering her as the nominee of the respondent/applicant. 4. When there is such a provision in the Rules, the petitioner/respondent insists that a death certificate of the husband of K.Sathyabhama, who is the present wife of the respondent/applicant, be produced for entering her as the nominee of the respondent/applicant. 4. There is a purpose in enacting the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 (herein after mentioned as Act, 1969). The statement of objects and reasons will show the purpose of the enactment. Relevant portion of the statement of objects and reason is extracted here under: The Central Government needs adequate and accurate countrywide registration data for purpose of national planning, organizing public health and medical activities and developing family planning programmes. Population is one of the most dynamic factors in the present economy of the country but it is here that information on trends furnished by the registration data is very defective and unreliable. The national interest requires an acceptable level of performance by the States and technical uniformity of the methods and standards used in the collection and compilation of data throughout the country. The Government therefore, consider that in order to develop a sound and unified system of registration in the country, Central Legislation is necessary on the subject. 5. The statement of objects and reasons shows that the Central Government needs adequate and accurate countrywide registration data for the purpose of national planning, organizing public health and medical activities and developing family planning programmes. Therefore, it is the duty of the person concerned to notify births and deaths and certifying cause of death. Information given to the Registrar of Births and deaths should be entered in a register. If a birth or death is not registered in time, there are provisions in the Act 1969 to register the same subsequently. Section 13 of the Act 1969 deals with delayed registration of births and deaths. Section 13(2) of the Act 1969 is extracted here under: 13. Delayed registration of births and deaths:- (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) Any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority and on payment of the prescribed fee and the production of an affidavit made before a notary public or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government. (3). (3). Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the First Class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. 6. Section 23 of the Act 1969 provides penalties for the violation of the provisions of the Act 1969. 7. Therefore the Act 1969 provides that, death can be registered at any time, of course as per the procedure contemplated in the Act. The Act 1969 also says that if the death is not registered, penalty also can be imposed. There is a purpose behind the enactment of the Act 1969. The Central Government needs adequate and accurate countrywide registration data for several beneficial legislation and programmes. The population is one of the most dynamic factors in the present economy of the country and hence registration of the birth and death is mandatory in a welfare State. The national interest requires an acceptable level of performance by the States and technical uniformity of the methods and standards used in the collection and compilation of data throughout the country. In such circumstances, the Government decided that ,in order to develop a sound and uniform system of registration in the country, central registration is necessary and accordingly, Act 1969 was enacted. The citizens are bound to follow the Act, 1969. When there are provisions for registration of death in delayed cases and when Act 1969 imposes penalty for the violation of the same, the Tribunal erred in directing the petitioners to process the application of the respondent/applicant without a death certificate issued by the competent authority. When a statute prescribe certain things to be done in a certain manner, the Tribunal cannot direct the petitioners to overlook the statutory provisions. Therefore, the findings in this regard by the Tribunal is unsustainable and hence set aside. 8. But in the interest of justice, an opportunity is to be given to the respondent/applicant for producing the death certificate of the husband of his present wife for entering her name in the service records of the respondent/applicant as his nominee. Therefore, the respondent/applicant is free to obtain a birth certificate, after registering the death of the husband of his present wife. Therefore, the respondent/applicant is free to obtain a birth certificate, after registering the death of the husband of his present wife. If a death certificate of the former husband of K.Sathyabhama, who is the present wife of the respondent/applicant is produced by the respondent/applicant, the petitioners herein should consider the same and take steps to enter the name of K.Sathyabhama as his nominee in the service records of the respondent/applicant, if the application is otherwise in order. Parties shall bear their respective costs. With these directions, the Original Petition (CAT) is disposed of.