# Shanti Devi @ Sukh Devi v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 799
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-03
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 15526 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shanti-devi-sukh-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54790
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C., Usha Kiran

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility of requiring PAN Card and Aadhar
Card to proof the correct name of the wife of
deceased employee for granting her family
pension, particularly when it was not required
during the life of deceased-employee, who filed
the application for correction of his wife's name
in service record.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Post retiral benefits -
Family pension - Incorrect name of
petitioner (wife of deceased employee)
was entered in service record - Though
employee filed an application to correct
the name alongwith Form 'F', but no
action was taken - Effect - On behalf of
respondent, it was argued that no PAN
card and Aadhaar Card was provided to
substantiate
the
correct
name
-
Permissibility - Succession Certificate -
Relevance :
Held : Once in the year 2018 itself as per the
required provisions an application along with
Form 'F' (nomination for gratuity) was placed
mentioning petitioner's name as Shanti Devi and
nothing has been brought on record to show
that the petitioner's husband was put to notice
to submit other documents like PAN Card and
Aadhaar Card for verification of the aforesaid
fact that Shanti Devi and Sukh Devi are one and
the same person, the very submission and
contention being addressed on behalf of
respondent nos. 2 to 4 is unsustainable - For
the inaction or failure on the part of respondent
authority, an employee cannot be fastened with
any liability to which he has no authority - Such
functioning of responsible authorities alike in the
present case not only causes hardships and
difficulties to the dependents of deceased
employee who are in penury and pitiable
condition but also becomes cause of a number
of litigation which piles up cases before the
Courts. Authorities concerned should proceed in
such matters within due course of time in
accordance with law. [Paras 12, 13 and 14] (E-
1)

Case Law Cited
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ A No. 6031 of 2024, Rafat Naaz and
another v. State of U.P. and 3 others,
2024:AHC:187677; Writ Petition No. 12753 of
2011, Pawan Kumar Masurkar v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and others decided on 28
February 2024 - referred to.

List of Acts
Indian Succession Act, 1925 - S. 370 (1).

List of Keywords
Post retiral benefits; General Provident Fund;
Gratuity; Pension; Ex-gratia compensation; Link
insurance; TSC; Form 'F'; Nomination for
gratuity; Succession Certificate; PAN Card;
Aadhar Card.

Case Arising From
Failure of the authority in releasing family
pension and other post retiral benefits.

Appearances for Parties
Advs.
for
the
Petitioner
:
Sunil
Kumar
Srivastava, Vinod Kumar Srivastava
Advs. For the Respondent : Ms. Usha Kiran

## Text

11 All. Shanti Devi @ Sukh Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
799
the light of State of Punjab and others
Vs. Rafiq Masih (2014) 8 SCC 883 and
considering that it is not a case of fraud on
the part of petitioner and probably since he
has agitated the case that he may be
permitted to work upto the age of 62 years,
a scrutiny was made of earlier order passed
in his favour and order of recovery was
passed. The order of recovery has already
been stayed by this Court.

16. In view of above, while rejecting
the prayer of petitioner to work upto the
age of 62 years, both these writ petitions
are disposed of that respondents will not
make any recovery of payment made
pursuant to higher pay scale granted to
petitioner as well as consequential financial
relief and petitioners pension shall be
determined only on basis of his last pay
drawn. Impugned order of recovery and a
direction to determine pension as per
earlier pay scale paid to petitioner (i.e.,
before higher pay fixation), is interfered
accordingly.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 799
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ - A No. 15526 of 2025

Shanti Devi @ Sukh Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Vinod Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Usha Kiran

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility of requiring PAN Card and Aadhar
Card to proof the correct name of the wife of
deceased employee for granting her family
pension, particularly when it was not required
during the life of deceased-employee, who filed
the application for correction of his wife's name
in service record.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Post retiral benefits -
Family pension - Incorrect name of
petitioner (wife of deceased employee)
was entered in service record - Though
employee filed an application to correct
the name alongwith Form 'F', but no
action was taken - Effect - On behalf of
respondent, it was argued that no PAN
card and Aadhaar Card was provided to
substantiate
the
correct
name
-
Permissibility - Succession Certificate -
Relevance :
Held : Once in the year 2018 itself as per the
required provisions an application along with
Form 'F' (nomination for gratuity) was placed
mentioning petitioner's name as Shanti Devi and
nothing has been brought on record to show
that the petitioner's husband was put to notice
to submit other documents like PAN Card and
Aadhaar Card for verification of the aforesaid
fact that Shanti Devi and Sukh Devi are one and
the same person, the very submission and
contention being addressed on behalf of
respondent nos. 2 to 4 is unsustainable - For
the inaction or failure on the part of respondent
authority, an employee cannot be fastened with
any liability to which he has no authority - Such
functioning of responsible authorities alike in the
present case not only causes hardships and
difficulties to the dependents of deceased
employee who are in penury and pitiable
condition but also becomes cause of a number
of litigation which piles up cases before the
Courts. Authorities concerned should proceed in
such matters within due course of time in
accordance with law. [Paras 12, 13 and 14] (E-
1)

Case Law Cited
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ A No. 6031 of 2024, Rafat Naaz and
another v. State of U.P. and 3 others,
2024:AHC:187677; Writ Petition No. 12753 of
2011, Pawan Kumar Masurkar v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and others decided on 28
February 2024 - referred to.

List of Acts
Indian Succession Act, 1925 - S. 370 (1).

List of Keywords
Post retiral benefits; General Provident Fund;
Gratuity; Pension; Ex-gratia compensation; Link
insurance; TSC; Form 'F'; Nomination for
gratuity; Succession Certificate; PAN Card;
Aadhar Card.

Case Arising From
Failure of the authority in releasing family
pension and other post retiral benefits.

Appearances for Parties
Advs.
for
the
Petitioner
:
Sunil
Kumar
Srivastava, Vinod Kumar Srivastava
Advs. For the Respondent : Ms. Usha Kiran

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. The petitioner has preferred this
writ petition for a direction upon the
respondents to pass an order for payment of
family pension and other retiral dues along
with interest of her late husband Sita Ram.

2.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner submits that the petitioner's
husband, Sita Ram, was appointed as a
Class-IV employee on the post of
Shramik in Kanpur Electricity Supply
Company Ltd. (for short, "KESCo"). He
died while in service on 13.06.2024,
leaving behind the petitioner and four
children,
including
three
married
daughters and one son, namely, Rahul.
Thereafter,
the
petitioner
made
an
application
on
10.10.2024
before
respondent no. 4 - Executive Engineer
(HRM), KESCo, Kanpur claiming post
retiral dues including GPF, Gratuity,
Pension, ex-gratia compensation, link
insurance, TSC and other arrears as well
as benefits, on which respondent no. 4
sent a letter to the petitioner stating
therein that in the nomination form name
of the petitioner was mentioned as Sukh
Devi,
whereas
in
the
documents
submitted by her, name was mentioned as
Shanti Devi, hence it was not possible for
the respondents to release the payments
as claimed.

3.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner submits that in fact name of the
petitioner as Sukh Devi was entered by
her husband at the time of making
nomination, whereas for the correction of
the name from Sukh Devi to Shanti Devi,
an
application
was
moved
by
petitioners husband on 30.10.2018. Said
document has been brought on record as
Annexure no. 5 (Page-27). As per the
requirements, Form 'F' i.e. nomination for
gratuity,
had
also
been
filled
by
petitioners husband mentioning Shanti
Devi as his wife, which was appended
along
with
the
application
dated
30.10.2018. In all other records as well,
the petitioner's name has been mentioned
as Shanti Devi.

4.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
further
contends
that
the
petitioner was not aware of the fact that
nick name was entered by her husband in
the nomination form, therefore, after
demise of her husband, she moved an
application along with other records as well
as affidavit proving that Sukh Devi and
Shanti Devi are one and the same person,
on which nothing was done, hence, the
present writ petition has been filed for a
direction upon the respondents to pay
family pension as well as other retiral dues
11 All. Shanti Devi @ Sukh Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
801
along with interest to the petitioner as
admissible after death of her husband.

5. To strengthen her claim, the
petitioner has also placed the documents on
record showing that her son - Rahul was
appointed
on
compassionate
ground.
During said process also the records were
verified and Shanti Devi was said to be
mother of Rahul and wife of the deceased
employee - Sita Ram. Said submission
could not be disputed in the instructions as
placed on record by learned counsel for
respondent nos. 2 to 4, in the Court today.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further
contends that the petitioner is being asked
to produce succession certificate in order to
claim her benefits.

6. On the basis of instructions,
which are placed on the record, Ms. Usha
Kiran, learned counsel for respondent nos.
2 to 4, states that when the application was
moved by the petitioner's husband in the
year 2018, he was required to submit his
PAN
Card
and
Aadhaar
Card
to
substantiate the fact that Shanti Devi was
his wife. However, for changing the name
in the nomination form from Sukh Devi to
Shanti Devi, no documents were provided
by the employee Sita Ram, thus, nothing
was done thereon.

7. I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State, Ms. Usha Kiran, learned counsel
for respondent nos. 2 to 4, and perused the
record.

8.
Admittedly,
petitioners
husband, during his lifetime, had moved an
application for correction of name in the
service records along with Form 'F'
(nomination
for
gratuity)
mentioning
petitioner's name as Shanti Devi and there
is nothing on record to show that the
petitioner's husband was put to notice to
submit other documents like PAN Card and
Aadhaar Card for verification of the
aforesaid fact i.e. Shanti Devi and Sukh
Devi are one and the same person, as being
argued by learned counsel for respondent
nos. 2 to 4. The contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner that she is being
asked to submit succession certificate is
required to be considered in view of the
settled proposition of law on the subject
matter.

9. A Coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Rafat Naaz and
another v. State of U.P. and 3 others1,
has held that once there is a nomination in
the service records of the deceased
employee in favour of a person (as in the
present
case,
his
wife)
then
the
employer/authority
cannot
withhold
payment of the death-cum-retiral benefits
on the ground that a succession certificate
is not produced. Relevant paragraph of the
said judgement reads thus:

 "19. In substance, a nomination
in the service records and a succession
certificate granted by the Court under
Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act
are at par; neither confers any beneficial
interest upon the recipient of the proceeds.
As already said, a person who asserts title
or beneficial interest in moneys or movable
property received by another under a
succession certificate, or for that matter, a
nomination can always institute a suit for
declaration
or
other
appropriate
consequential relief in order to establish his
beneficial interest or entitlement. At the
same time, once there is a nomination left
by the deceased in his service records in
favour of a person, who is his wife, there is
no reason for the respondents or any
802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
employer to withhold payment of the post
retiral benefits in favour of the nominee in
the service records. It is for the other
person, not so nominated, to establish his/
her claim through suit."

10. In the case of Pawan Kumar
Masurkar v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh
through
Secretary,
Water
Resource Department Vallabh Bhawan
Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) & 5 Others2,
the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dealt
with the issue regarding issuance of
succession certificate in favour heirs of
deceased employee and its applicability as
envisaged under sub-section (1) of Section
370 of the Indian Succession Act. It would
be apt to reproduce Section 370(1), which
provides thus:

 "(1) A succession certificate
(hereinafter in this Part referred to as a
certificate) shall not be granted under this
Part with respect to any debt or security to
which a right is required by Section 212 or
Section 213 to be established by letters of
administration or probate :

 Provided that nothing contained
in this section shall be deemed to prevent
the grant of a certificate to any person
claiming to be entitled to the effects of a
deceased Indian Christian, or to any part
thereof, with respect to any debt or
security, by reason that a right thereto can
be established by letters of administration
under this act."

11. In the case in hand, the core
dispute remains whether the petitioner -
Shanti Devi and Sukh Devi, as disclosed in
nomination papers, wife of deceased
employee, are one and the same person.
Though, for the purposes of necessary
correction of petitioners name in the
relevant service records i.e. from Sukh
Devi to Shanti Devi, her husband during
his lifetime had moved an application on
30.10.2018,
however,
the
respondent
authority did not proceed thereupon. In the
instructions as passed on to the Court,
today, by learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos. 2 to 4, the reason is being
attributed upon the deceased employee, for
the failure to proceed on the application
dated 30.10.2018 that PAN Card and
Aadhaar Card were not provided by the
deceased employee for the said purpose,
whereas no document or evidence has been
brought on record to demonstrate that the
deceased employee was ever asked to
submit the copies of PAN Card and
Aadhaar Card.

12. In view of abovementioned
circumstances, this Court is of the opinion
that once in the year 2018 itself as per the
required provisions an application along
with Form 'F' (nomination for gratuity) was
placed mentioning petitioner's name as
Shanti Devi and nothing has been brought
on record to show that the petitioner's
husband was put to notice to submit other
documents like PAN Card and Aadhaar
Card for verification of the aforesaid fact
that Shanti Devi and Sukh Devi are one and
the same person, the very submission and
contention being addressed on behalf of
respondent nos. 2 to 4 is unsustainable.

13. For the inaction or failure on
the part of respondent authority, an
employee cannot be fastened with any
liability to which he has no authority. As in
the present case, it was incumbent upon the
respondent authorities to ask for relevant
documents like PAN Card and Aadhaar
Card for the purposes of verification from
petitioner's husband, immediately after
submission of application dated 30.10.2018
11 All. Kamal Kant Dubey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
803
for correction of his wife's name in
the service records, if were required.

14. Such functioning of responsible
authorities alike in the present case not only
causes hardships and difficulties to the
dependents of deceased employee who are
in penury and pitiable condition but also
becomes cause of a number of litigation
which piles up cases before the Courts.
Authorities concerned should proceed in
such matters within due course of time in
accordance with law. They are not expected
to sit tight over the applications for years
without passing any order with the
assumption that infirmities will become set
right without information to the concerned
employee.

15. In view of the above, interest of
justice requires that a direction be issued
upon respondent no. 4 to consider the claim
of the petitioner in accordance with law,
keeping in mind the observations as made
in the judgement in Rafat Naaz (supra), in
case the petitioner approaches along with
relevant documents as placed in the writ
petition, and pass appropriate orders for
payment of post retiral benefits to the
petitioner of her late husband after
verifying that Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt.
Sukh Devi are one and the same person,
expeditiously, preferably within a period of
one month from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order. The writ
petition is disposed of with the said
directions.

16. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 803
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ - A No. 16686 of 2025

Kamal Kant Dubey ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Jadu Nandan Yadav, Pranvesh

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.S.G.I., Shiv Kumar Pal

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility of relying upon the favourable
medical report of other hospitals, when the
petitioner was found medically unfit during
medical examinations for selection on the post
of Sub-Inspector.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Recruitment - Post of
Sub-Inspector - Medical examination -
Judicial review - Scope of interference -
After clearing Physical Standard Test and
Paper
II
examination,
the
petitioner
appeared in medical examination - He
was found unfit due to 'Gynecomastia'
during
Detailed
Medical
Examination
(D.M.E.) and Review Medical Examination
(R.M.E.)
-
Re-conduct
of
medical
examination sought - Report of Sir Sundar
Lal Chikitsalaya, Kashi and Pandit Deen
Dayal
Upadhyay
Government
Hospital
relied upon - Permissibility.
Held : Any report so pressed into service by the
writ petitioner as claimed herein cannot be a
ground to negate the conclusions drawn in
D.M.E. and R.M.E. - In Naomi Neijoujam
Haokip's case, the issue akin to the present
controversy came up for consideration - The
suitability of the candidates to function as a
member of the Force, given the medical
condition from which the candidate suffers, has
to be entirely left to the members of the Force
to assess the candidate, as they alone are
aware of the nature of the work that the
candidate,
if
appointed,
would
have
to
undertake, and the capacity of the candidates to
undertake the said work. In other words, once
the Court finds that the decision that the