Judicial Record Correction for Non-Disputed Typographical Errors in Service Benefits and Pension Processing

The Applicants (an Association and an individual officer) had previously succeeded in OA No. 1524 of 2019, where the Tribunal directed the grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400 to eligible members.

While the Respondent Department implemented this order on 14.08.2020 for 443 members, a typographical error existed in the original list (Annexure A-13), listing member Mr. G. Gururaghavendran (Sl. No. 286) as "Mr. R. Gururaghavendran".

Although the Department initially extended the benefits despite the error, the Pay & Accounts Officer (PAO) raised an objection during pension processing, as the member is due for retirement on 31.05.2026.

The PAO insisted that the clerical error in the judicial record must be rectified by the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Applicants filed the present Miscellaneous Application for correction of the name.

1. Whether the typographical error in the name of an applicant in the judicial record (Annexure A-13) can be rectified to ensure the implementation of retirement and pensionary benefits.

The court applied the principle of judicial rectification of "inadvertent typographical errors" in judicial records.

It emphasized that "hyper-technical and untenable" objections by administrative or accounting authorities should not override substantive rights already recognized by a court of law.

The court exercised its inherent power to ensure that a clerical mistake does not result in the denial of service benefits to an identically placed officer whose identity was otherwise clearly established by employee codes and service records.

The Tribunal observed that the discrepancy between the initials "R." and "G." was a purely clerical oversight.

It noted that the identity of the individual was never in doubt, as evidenced by his unique employee code and the fact that the 3rd Respondent had already clarified the error and previously extended the financial benefits to him in 2020.

The Tribunal reasoned that since there was no other employee with a similar name in the zone, the PAO's refusal to accept the Department’s clarification was an unnecessary technicality.

The court linked the necessity of this correction to the Applicant's impending superannuation, ensuring that his pension processing would not be stalled by a minor labeling error in the original application's annexure.

The court specifically directed the Respondents and the Pay & Accounts Office to give full effect to this correction and process the applicant's pensionary and consequential benefits without further delay, noting his retirement date of 31.05.2026. The application was officially recorded as allowed.