AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-
“(i)This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure No.A-1)
(ii)This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to correct the name of applicant in the PPO of Husband of applicant as "Smt. Fuliya instead of "Smt. Devi".
(iii)This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to start family pension of applicant immediately and also pay arrears of family pension along with admissible interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 03.04.2025 till the date of actual payment.
(iv)Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
(v)Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant”.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The husband of the applicant, late Musafir Singh Yadav, was working as BM Grade-I in the S&T Department of the Railways. He joined railway service on 22.05.1962 and retired from service on 30.06.1997. It is stated that due to an inadvertent mistake, the name of the applicant was recorded in his service records as “Smt. Devi” instead of her correct name “Smt. Fuliya Devi”. The husband of the applicant died on 02.04.2025. After his death, the applicant approached the respondents for grant of family pension. However, her claim was not accepted on the ground that her name did not tally with the name recorded in the service records of her late husband. The applicant thereafter submitted a representation dated 17.05.2025 along with an affidavit and various documents, including Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, Voter ID Card, character/residence/cast certificates issued by the Village Panchayat, Family Register and Ration Card, showing that she is the wife of late Musafir Singh Yadav and her correct name is “Smt. Fuliya Devi”. However, the respondents rejected her request for correction of her name in the PPO vide order dated 20.05.2025, merely stating that her name had been recorded as “Smt. Devi” in the service records. According to the applicant, the said order is cryptic, non-speaking and has been passed without properly considering the documents submitted by her. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking appropriate relief.
Per contra, the respondents have filed its counter affidavit stating therein that late Musafir Singh Yadav (deceased employee) was appointed in the Railways on 22.05.1962 and retired on 30.06.1997. He was granted pension with effect from 01.07.1997 and died on 02.04.2025. It is stated that the deceased employee had mentioned the name of his wife as “Smt. Devi” in his nomination form, pension forms and other service records. Accordingly, his wife name was recorded as “Smt. Devi” in PPO dated 09.07.1997 and also in all subsequent PPOs dated 04.02.1999, 23.04.2001 and 17.04.2018. After the death of the employee, the applicant approached the respondents through CPGRAMS on 17.05.2025, claiming that her correct name was “Smt. Fuliya Devi” and requesting correction of the name in the PPO. The respondents examined the relevant records and found that the name had consistently been recorded as “Smt. Devi” and that the deceased employee had never sought any correction during his lifetime. The applicant was accordingly informed of the position vide letters dated 20.05.2025 and 29.05.2025. The respondents have, therefore, justified their action and opposed the claim of the applicant.
A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant, in which the facts stated in the Original Application have been reiterated and the contents of the counter affidavit have been denied. Nothing new has been stated in the rejoinder affidavit.
I have heard Sri Lakhan Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, and have perused the record.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant’s name is both “Smt. Devi” and “Smt. Fuliya Devi”. She was generally known as “Smt. Devi” and, for this reason, her husband mentioned her name as “Smt. Devi” in his service records. The applicant has filed several documents before the competent authority in support of her claim, but the same were not accepted. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that, in similar circumstances, this Tribunal, while deciding O.A. No. 723 of 2026 on 18.09.2026, granted an opportunity to the applicant to obtain/publish the requisite Gazette Notification and submit the same before the competent authority along with other supporting documents. The respondents were thereafter directed to take appropriate steps for correction of the name of the applicant. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the present O.A. may also be disposed of in the same manner by granting an opportunity to the applicant to publish the change of her name in the Gazette and submit the same before the competent authority, who may thereafter take appropriate action for correction of her name in the PPO and for release of family pension and other admissible retiral benefits.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the name of the applicant mentioned in the present O.A. is entirely different from the name recorded by her deceased husband in his service records. Therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. The Original Application is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the record.
It is true that the applicant has filed several documents showing her name as “Smt. Fuliya Devi”. However, in the service and pension records of her deceased husband, her name has consistently been recorded as “Smt. Devi”. The applicant has not produced the requisite Gazette Notification for change of her name. Therefore, the respondents cannot be faulted for relying upon the name recorded in the official service records.
Before considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to refer to Para 1201 to 1205 of the IREM, which deal with the procedure for change of name:
“1201. A railway servant wishing to adopt a new name or to effect any modification in his existing name should be asked to adopt the change formally by a deed changing his name. In order that the execution of the document may not be in doubt, it is desirable that it should be attested by two witnesses preferably those known to the Head of the of the Office in which the railway way servant is serving. The execution of the deed in Form No. 75 of Appendix 9 should be followed by publication of the change in a prominent local newspaper as well as the Gazette of India, publication being undertaken by the railway servant at his own expense in both cases. For the publication of the advertisement in the Gazette of India, the railway servant should be directed to approach the Manager of Publications, India, Publication Branch, Civil Lines, Delhi. In the cases in which Railway servants get the change of their names notified in the State Government Gazette, the publication in the Government of India Gazette need not be insisted upon. Government of satisfactory evidence of identity and execution of the documents adduced by the railway servant that
1202. It is only after the formalities described in the foregoing paragraph have been complied with and the adoption of the new name or change in the existing name should be recognized officially, entries in Government records so far as may be necessary being amended accordingly. True copies of the relevant ocuments should be retained and placed on the personal file of the railway servant concerned.
1203. In the case of change in names of women railway servants consequent on their marriage, formalities indicated in paragraphs 1201 & 1202 above need not be observed, provided that the Head of the Office or Department concerned is satisfied that the change sought to be effected is, in reality in pursuance of the marriage and that the new name is after the name of the husband. The change of name in such cases should, however, be notified to all officials concerned.
1204. As regards change in names consequent on a departmental clerical error, the procedural instructions indicated in paragraphs above need not be followed and necessary corrections should be leffected in the official records. The correct name should be notified to all concerned in this case also.
1205. In the case of change of name of the father of a railway servant, it is not binding on the part of the railway servant concerned to follow the change. But if he does so, the prescribed formalities laid down in paragraphs above should be followed”.
In view of the above provisions, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present O.A. pending. The applicant may be given an opportunity to comply with the prescribed procedure for change of name and thereafter approach the competent authority with the requisite documents.
Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 is quashed. The applicant is permitted to obtain/publish the requisite Gazette Notification regarding the change of her name and submit the same, along with other supporting documents, before the competent authority. On receipt of the Gazette Notification and other supporting documents, the competent authority shall consider the applicant’s claim in accordance with the provision of Para 1201 to 1205 of the IREM and the relevant Railway rules/circulars/instructions and pass a reasoned and speaking order. If the applicant’s claim is found genuine and in accordance with the applicable rules, necessary correction in the service record of the deceased employee shall be made and family pension and other admissible retiral benefits shall be released to her, including the arrears, as per rules. The competent authority shall complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of three months from the date of submission of the requisite documents by the applicant. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.