Kataka/Karanjia: The Orissa High Court has directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to settle the service and death-related benefits of the wife of an employee who went missing in 2007, holding that it is not legally permissible on the part of the bank to question the date of death recorded in a statutory death certificate.
Justice BP Routray passed the order Thursday while allowing a writ petition filed by Baidehi Behera, wife of Rabindra Nath Behera, who was working as a Head Messenger at SBI’s Karanjia branch when he went missing. Behera did not return home af ter office hours December 10, 2007.
His wife lodged a missing report at Karanjia police station December 12. Despite extensive efforts by his family, he could not be traced for more than 15 years. The petitioner subsequently approached the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karanjia, seeking a declaration of her husband’s civil death.
By judgment and decree dated February 27, 2024, the civil court declared Behera dead under the statutory presumption applicable to a person who has not been heard of for seven years. Based on the court’s decree, the competent authority under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, issued a death certificate recording December 10, 2007 — the date he went missing — as his date of death.
Baidehi then approached SBI seeking settlement of her deceased husband’s dues and benefits. However, the Chief Manager of the Karanjia branch rejected her claim November 15, 2025, stating that the date of death mentioned in the certificate was erroneous and advising her to get it corrected by the appropriate authority.
Challenging the decision, Baidehi argued that SBI had no jurisdiction to question an entry made by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. Her counsel submitted that the death certificate was a public document issued by a statutory authority and carried a presumption of correctness.
The High Court accepted the contention, observing that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act empowers the Registrar to correct or cancel an erroneous entry. The bank, therefore, could not unilaterally declare the date recorded in the certificate to be erroneous.
The court also noted that the death certificate had remained unchallenged and that the bank had produced no evidence to disprove the date recorded in it. If the date or time of death is disputed, the court said, it must be established through direct or circumstantial evidence rather than assumption.
Holding the bank’s refusal to accept the death certificate legally impermissible, Justice Routray directed the concerned authorities to release the settlement claim of late Rabindra Nath Behera in favour of his wife within two months, subject to there being no other legal impediment.
