The Allahabad High Court has objected to the withholding of family pension and other retiral benefits on the ground that the wife’s name was incorrectly mentioned in the deceased employee’s nomination form. The Court observed that if the deceased employee had applied for correction of the name during his lifetime and the department failed to act on it, his wife cannot be penalised for that lapse. Expressing displeasure over departmental negligence, the Court remarked:
“Such functioning of responsible authorities, alike in the present case, not only causes hardships and difficulties for the dependents of deceased employees who are in penury and pitiable condition, but also becomes a cause of a number of litigations which pile up before the Courts.”
The Court stated that it is the duty of the authorities to take timely and proper decisions and to ensure the prompt release of retiral benefits.
The Court further clarified that it is the responsibility of the department to take timely action on the employee’s application, and not the employee’s obligation to repeatedly request it —
“If the employee has moved an application for correction of name in the service records, it is incumbent upon the respondent authorities to ask for relevant documents like PAN Card and Aadhaar Card for the purposes of verification from the petitioner’s husband, immediately after submission of application dated 30.10.2018 for correction of his wife’s name in the service records, if were required. It cannot be expected that the infirmities will become set right without information to the concerned employee.”
The order was passed by a Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, while allowing the writ petition of Shanti Devi @ Sukh Devi.
According to the case details, the petitioner wife of the deceased KESCo (Kanpur Electricity Supply Company) employee Sita Ram had applied for family pension and other post-retiral benefits after her husband’s demise. However, the department withheld payment, stating that her name appeared as “Sukh Devi” in the nomination form, whereas her documents mentioned “Shanti Devi.”
The Court found that Sita Ram had, in fact, applied for name correction in 2018 and mentioned his wife’s name as “Shanti Devi” in Form ‘F’ (Nomination for Gratuity). Since there was no record that the department had raised any objection or sought additional documents such as PAN or Aadhaar cards, the Court held that the employee or his dependents should not suffer due to the department’s inaction.
The Court directed the Executive Engineer (HRM), KESCo, to consider Shanti Devi’s representation within one month, verify that Shanti Devi and Sukh Devi are one and the same person, and release all admissible post-retiral benefits accordingly.
Finally, while directing departments to act sensitively towards the dependents of deceased employees, the Court emphasised:
“For inaction or failure on the part of respondent authority, an employee cannot be fastened with any liability over which he has no authority.”
The Court made it clear that minor technical errors or name discrepancies cannot be used as a pretext to deprive dependents of deceased employees of their rightful entitlements, which would be wholly unjustified in the eyes of law.
Finally, the Court issued directions to authority to verify whether Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Sukh Devi are the same person and, thereafter, ensure the expeditious payment of the petitioner’s late husband’s post-retirement benefits.
Case: Shanti Devi @ Sukh Devi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
