Mamta Devi @ Manda Devi vs Union Of India & Ors

Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Shri L.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.

The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

"i. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to correct the name of applicant in the service record of Husband of applicant as "Mamta Devi" instead of "Manda Devi" and start her family pension immediately and also pay arrears of family pension along with admissible interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 04.02.2020 the date of actual payment.

ii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents decide the pending representation of applicant dated 04.12.2025 by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

iii. 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 applicants.

iv. Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant."

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that by way of this OA, the applicant is praying for a direction against the respondents for incorporation / correction of name of the applicant as "Mamta Devi" instead of "Manda Devi" in service record of Late Rajendra Prasad, who was employed in the respondents organization on the post of Technician-I and was retired from service on 31.08.2012 and died on 04.02.2020 and the respondents instead of issuing family pension in favour of the applicant, denied the same on the ground that the name of wife of Late Rajendra Prasad has been mentioned as Manda in his service record while the name of the applicant is Mamta.

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant, referring to relief clause no 2, submits that seeking redressal of her grievance, applicant had preferred a representation dated 04.12.2025 (Annexure A-4 to the OA) before the respondents but the same has not been decided till date and thus, at this stage, the applicant would be satisfied if the competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to decide the aforesaid representation in a time bound manner by way of a reasoned and speaking order.

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant's counsel submitting that the instant case holds no merit and is liable to be dismissed accordingly.

I have considered the rival contentions.

Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, having perused the representation moved by the applicant (Annexed as Annexure A4 to the OA) and considering the limited prayer made by the applicant's counsel, it would be in the fitness of things if the instant OA is disposed of at this stage itself directing the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant. Accordingly, the instant original application is disposed of at this stage itself. The competent authority amongst the respondents is hereby directed to take a decision on the representation dated 04.12.2025 of the applicant in light of extant rules and provisions. The said decision be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and be communicated to the applicant within 15 days of its passing, without fail. Needless to say, I have not commented anything regarding the merits of the case nor examined the same.

All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.