ORDER :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

The State must be a model employer and must discharge its obligations towards its employees with fairness, sensitivity and due diligence. Only then good governance would be possible and confidence of the employees would be maintain in the administrative machinery.

The instant case is a classic and glaring example of the functioning of Government officials. From 2024 onwards, the petitioner has been compelled to run from pillar to post merely for securing correction of her name in her service record. This is in no way, shape or form, anything other than sheer apathy on the part of the State-Authorities. It is because of the impersonal and irresponsible approach of the concerned officers, who instead of taking an appropriate action, seek to shift the responsibility to Court and shirk to take decisions. The bureaucracy has developed an attitude inertia and does not want to take any decision, leaving the Court to resolve the matter, which ought to have been addressed by the administration itself.

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition with limited prayer to directed the respondents to improve/complete the name in service record as Shakuntla Devi Sharma, instead of Shakuntla Sharma and impose the cost to appointing officer then Rs. 25,000/- and kindly be pleased a directed for compensation to petitioner for mental pain since long period Rs. 50,000/- with Advocate fees Rs. 25,000/- and other expenses Rs. 10,000/- total=Rs. 1,10,000/-.

Any other which this Honourable court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner;”

2. By way of filing the instant writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to make necessary corrections in the service record with regard to the petitioner's correct name.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the correct name of the petitioner is 'Shakuntla Devi Sharma' and she mentioned her full name in the application form while seeking appointment to the post of Prabodhak. Thereafter, she was selected and appointed to the post of Prabodhak, but in the service record, her correct and full name 'Shakuntla Devi Sharma' was not recorded. The middle name 'Devi' was somehow deleted from the name of the petitioner in her service record. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner submitted a representation in the Office of the respondents in the month of July, 2023 seeking necessary rectification of the error in the service record, but no heed was paid to the said representation. Counsel further submits that adequate cost may be imposed upon the respondents as the respondents did not pay any heed to the representation submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose and compelled her to approach this Court for her rightful claim by way of filing the instant writ petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the mistake in recording the petitioner's full name in the service record has occurred inadvertently. However, later on, the mistake has been corrected by the respondents vide order dated 03.04.2025 and now, her correct and full name has been entered as 'Shakuntla Devi Sharma' in her service record. Hence, under the changed circumstance, the instant writ petition has become infructuous, as no cause of action survives with the petitioner to continue with the present writ petition.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

6. This petition depicts a very sorry state of affairs and reflects the causal, insensitive and apathetic approach of the respondent- department towards its own employee. An employee who has correctly mentioned her name at the time of filling up her application form is forc