K.Sakthivel v. The Accountant General Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI K.Sakthivel ... Petitioner Vs.
1 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF TAMILNADU 361 ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI - 600 018.
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.
3 THE TAHSILDAR, SANKARI TALUK, SALEM DISTRICT.
4 THE ASSISTANT TREASURY OFFICER SANKARI, SALEM DISTRICT.
... Respondents Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 07.03.2023 made in Oo.Mu.981/2023/E passed by the third respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to issue a certificate to correct the name of my wife as 'S.Kasthuri' instead 'S.Krishnavani' in the nominee column 1/4
of the Service Register to process family pension proposal. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manoharan For Respondents : Ms.G.Vardini Karthik for R1 Ms.S.Anitha for R2 to R4 Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 07.03.2023 made in Oo.Mu.981/2023/E passed by the third respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to issue certificate to correct the name of the petitioner's wife as 'S.Kasthuri' instead 'S.Krishnavani' in the nominee column of the Service Register to process family pension proposal. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable on 01.04.1986 and on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service as Special Sub Inspector of Police on 31.10.2022. After the petitioner's retirement, his pension papers were processed and pension payment order was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that inadvertently, in the nomination form for family benefit fund, his wife name was given as 'S.Krishnavani' instead of 'S.Kasthuri' 2/4
and hence the petitioner made representation to the third respondent to enquire and to issue a certificate effecting that S.Kasthuri @ S.Krishnavani are one and the same, however, the third respondent passed the impugned order refusing the request of the petitioner. 3.This Court perused the entire records. The records reveal that the petitioner has mentioned his wife name as S.Krishnavani in the nomination form. Later the petitioner realised the mistake that his wife name is S.Kasthuri, however, she was called as S.Krishnavani. For rectification of the mistake, the petitioner approached the revenue officials, however, the revenue officials cannot rectify such mistakes and only the competent civil Court an rectify such mistakes. 4.In view of the above, the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out the remedy in the manner known to law. 5.The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
24.10.2025 pri Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No 3/4
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri To 1 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF TAMILNADU 361 ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI - 600 018.
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.
3 THE TAHSILDAR, SANKARI TALUK, SALEM DISTRICT.
4 THE ASSISTANT TREASURY OFFICER SANKARI, SALEM DISTRICT.
24.10.2025 4/4