Gazette Notification Is Mandatory Under CCS Rules For Recognition Of Name Change To Claim Family Pension : Calcutta HC

Background Facts

The petitioner's husband's name was Gopal Chandra Karmakar alias Kartick Chandra Marick. He was an employee of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), Kolkata. He retired from service on 31.05.1997. Then he was granted pension vide order dated 17.11.1998, wherein the name of the petitioner, his wife was mentioned as “Kajari Marick”. During his lifetime, the deceased pensioner affirmed affidavits on 13.09.2002. He also made a publication in Anandabazar Patrika declaring that both names Kartick Chandra Marick and Gopal Chandra Karmakar belonged to him. Another affidavit for same purpose was affirmed before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. The petitioner claimed that her husband had changed his title from “Marick” to “Karmakar,” therefore, she also adopted the same surname. It was reflected in her Voter ID, PAN, and Aadhaar cards. After her husband's death on 01.03.2012, she applied for family pension on 04.08.2022. However, no action was taken by the ESIC authorities.

The petitioner filed an RTI seeking status of her application. The authorities replied that her prayer was under consideration. Then petitioner filed a writ petition. As per the Court's direction dated 07.03.2024, the ESIC passed a reasoned order rejecting her claim. The department stated that the deceased had not published his name change in the Gazette of India. The Gazette publication was mandatory as per CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 & 2021. The department also held that the petitioner also had not published her surname change in the Gazette, therefore she was also ineligible for family pension. Therefore, the petitioner tried to get her husband's name published posthumously in the Kolkata Gazette. But the request was rejected on the ground that only the concerned individual can apply for such change.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

It was submitted by the petitioner that her husband had declared through affidavits and newspaper publication that both names referred to him only. The petitioner relied upon the declarations, including an affidavit dated 13.09.2002 and publication in Anandabazar Patrika dated 28.09.2002, to contend that the identity of her deceased husband was never in dispute during his lifetime, nor at the time of disbursal of pension till his death. It was further submitted that the petitioner had also affirmed an affidavit dated 03.08.2022 declaring her change of surname from “Marick” to “Karmakar,”. Further all her official identification documents such as Aadhaar, PAN and Voter ID showed this change. It was further submitted by the petitioner that the her husband had mentioned the petitioner's name as his spouse in his pension payment order (PPO).

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent ESIC that as per the official records, the name of the deceased employee was Kartick Chandra Marick, and the name of the spouse was Kajori Marick, submitted prior to retirement. The pension was released accordingly, and the deceased continued to draw pension under that name until his death in 2012. It was further submitted that the petitioner had only relied upon affidavits and a newspaper publication, which do not fulfil the procedural requirement under CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and 2021. It also mandates publication in the Gazette of India. It was also submitted that no Gazette notification was submitted for the petitioner's own name change, since the name on record in the PPO was “Kajori Marick,” but now she claimed to be “Kajari Karmakar.”

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the petitioner placed reliance on affidavits and a newspaper publication made during the lifetime of the pensioner, but no Gazette notification was ever issued reflecting the name change of either the pensioner or the petitioner. It was further observed by the Court that some supporting documents such as Aadhaar, PAN, and Voter ID reflected the name “Kajari Karmakar.” However, the official service records and the Pension Payment Order (PPO) continued to record the name as Kajori Marick, wife of Kartick Chandra Marick. It was held by the Court that the name change procedure as prescribed under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Pension Rules, 1972 & 2021 mandates Gazette publication, which had not been complied with by the petitioner or the deceased. It was also noted by the Court that the petitioner had made an attempt to publish the name of her deceased husband in the Kolkata Gazette. But the application was rejected on the ground that only the concerned individual can apply for name change, and posthumous applications were not permissible.

It was held by the Court that family pension is a beneficial and welfare-oriented scheme, but it must be granted strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory framework. In the absence of the necessary Gazette notification, the claim could not be entertained. Since the petitioner did not fulfil the mandatory conditions as per the relevant rules, the Court found no merit in the petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Name : Smt. Kajari Karmaker @ Kajari Marick vs. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Ors.

Case No. : WPA 3897 of 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : Masudur Rahaman, Ahamina Nasrin

Counsel for the Respondents : Subal Maitra, Arindam Maitra, Sourav Chaudhuri