2025:UHC:930 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 14th FEBRUARY, 2025 WRIT PETITON NO. 2599 of 2016 (M/S) Smt. Shanti Joshi alias Giwanti Devi ……..Petitioner Versus Union of India and Others …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate through video conferencing. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Nos. 1 and 2 Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr. Karmanya Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 8-6-2016 passed by respondent no. 2 (contained as Annexure no. 4 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the respondent no. 2 to amend the P.P.O. as prayed. (iii) Issue any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of petitioner. 2025:UHC:930 2 (iv) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of petitioner.” 2. Heard Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing, Mr. Atul Bahuguna, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Karmanya Pandey, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. 3. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, has contended that Late Shri Kanti Ballabh Joshi, the husband of the petitioner, was recruited in Army in the B.E.G. & C., Roorkee. He retired on 10.12.1980. The name of the petitioner as wife of Late Shri Kanti Ballabh Joshi is recorded as Giwanti Devi by the clerical mistake inspite of Shanti Joshi alias Giwanti Devi. Petitioner had submitted her representation to correct her name in the record of the respondent nos.1 and 2. The said representation for correction was rejected by respondent no.2 vide impugned order dated 08.06.2016. 4. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, has requested to decide the present writ petition by directing the respondent no.2 to decide the petitioner’s representation for correction her name in PPO as expeditiously as possible for which the petitioner shall 2025:UHC:930 3 move her representation within two weeks’ from today. 5. Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2, on instruction, has sought four weeks’ time to decide the representation of the petitioner. 6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner moves a fresh representation along with relevant documents and a certified copy of this order within two weeks’ from today, the respondent no.2 shall decide the said representation by a speaking order in accordance with law/ rule/ policy within four weeks’ thereafter. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt: 14.02.2025 Pant/