Nomination in service records suffices for benefit claims, eliminating the need for a succession certificate if names are verified as identical.

JUDGMENT :

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 petitioner’s 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 petitioner’s 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 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 th