Pension authorities must reconsider a widow’s claim after she completes prescribed name-change formalities.

Late Musafir Singh Yadav, a railway employee who retired in 1997, died on 2 April 2025.

His service and pension records consistently named his wife as “Smt. Devi.”

The applicant, who claimed her correct name was “Smt. Fuliya Devi,” sought family pension and submitted identity and family documents supporting her claim.

The respondents rejected her request to amend the PPO because the name did not match the records.

She challenged that rejection before the Tribunal.

The applicant also asked to be permitted to publish a Gazette notification and then resubmit her claim.

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s request to correct the name in her late husband’s PPO was liable to be set aside

2. Whether the applicant should be permitted to complete the prescribed name-change procedure and have her claim reconsidered for correction of records and release of family pension

Paragraphs 1201–1205 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) prescribe the procedure for name changes in railway records.

In general, a railway servant seeking to adopt or modify a name must formally execute a deed and publish notice in a prominent local newspaper and the Gazette of India, subject to the stated exception for publication in a State Government Gazette; official recognition and amendment of records follow compliance with the prescribed formalities and satisfactory evidence.

The provisions also address changes following marriage, departmental clerical errors, and changes to a railway servant’s father’s name.

The Tribunal directed that the applicant’s claim be considered under these provisions and the relevant railway rules, circulars, and instructions.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had produced documents showing her name as “Smt. Fuliya Devi,” but noted that her late husband’s service and pension records consistently recorded her as “Smt. Devi” and that she had not produced the required Gazette notification.

It therefore found that the respondents could rely on the existing records, but concluded that the applicant should be given an opportunity to complete the prescribed procedure.

Rather than determine the claim on the existing documents alone, the Tribunal quashed the rejection and required a fresh, reasoned determination after the applicant submitted the Gazette notification and other supporting documents.

The applicant was permitted to obtain or publish the requisite Gazette notification and submit it with supporting documents.

The competent authority must consider the claim under the IREM and applicable railway rules, issue a reasoned and speaking order, and, if the claim is found genuine and compliant, correct the deceased employee’s records and release the applicant’s family pension and other admissible retiral benefits, including arrears.

The exercise must be completed within three months of submission of the requisite documents.

No costs were awarded.