Honble KOKJE, J.–The appellants are the legal heirs and successors of Late Shri Trilok Chand Agarwal who was in the employment of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as LIC) in its Ajmer office as a peon, Late Shri Trilok Chand Agarwal was served with two charge sheets dated 31.3.83 and 17.5.83 for unauthorised absence from duty. In his reply to the charge sheetsLate Shri Trilok Chand explained the reasons for his remaining absent without getting leave of absence sanctioned. According to him he had to remain absent from duty because of his own illness as well as illness of his wife. After a regular Departmental Enquiry Late Shri Trilok Chand was awarded the penalty of removal from service vide order dated 20.2.1984. An appeal to the departmental appellateauthority was preferred but without any success. (2). The matter then went to Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) on a reference being made by the Central Government in 1987. During the pendency of the Reference Shri Trilok Chand died on 14.5.1989. The appellants herein were substituted as party and they contested the case. The CGIT ultimately held that the punishment of removal from service was too harsh and disproportionate to the mis-conduct proved and as such set aside the removal from service and substituted it by the punishment of withholding of four increments with permanent effect for the years 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987. The CGIT further directed that since the employee had died on 14.5.1989 and cannot therefore be reinstated, the salary for the period from 20.2.1984 to 13.5.1989 after deduction of the amount of four increments shallbe paid to the successors, the petitioners herein. It was also expected of the LIC to give employment to one of the relatives of the deceased employee on compassionate grounds. (3). The LIC in compliance with the award of CGIT made payment of salary but did not pay amount of bonus, cash medical benefit, term Assurance, gratuityetc. The LIC did not give employment to any of the appellants on compassionate ground either. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a petition before this Court praying for payment of all the amounts due to late Shri Trilok Chand treating him to have died while in service on 14.5.1989. Employment on compassionate grounds was also sought for. (4). The LIC did not give employment to any of the appellants on compassionate ground either. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a petition before this Court praying for payment of all the amounts due to late Shri Trilok Chand treating him to have died while in service on 14.5.1989. Employment on compassionate grounds was also sought for. (4). The learned Single Judge who heard the petition dismissed it observing that under the impugned award only salary was directed to be paid and if the petitioners considered themselves to be entitled to some thing more, they may apply to the LIC. It was also observed that there was no direction in the award for employment of a relative, it was only an expectation expressed. Aggrieved by thisorder, this appeal was preferred. (5). We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The contention of the appellants is that the CGIT set aside the punishment of removal from service and substituted it by a lesser punishment. The deceased employee shall therefore, be deemed to have continued in service till his death and would naturallybe held to have died in harness. In that case, all the benefits which would become payable to the heirs of an employee dying while in service shall become payable to the appellants as heirs of Late Trilok Chand. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the CGIT has not ordered reinstatement in service, though for the obvious reason that the employee had died pendingthe proceedings. He could not therefore, have been deemed in service on the date of his death. The appellants cannot therefore, be deemed to be entitled to any benefits on the basis that Shri Trilok Chand had died while in service. It was further contended that the CGIT directed payment of salary alone which meant that all other dues were not awarded. This meant that the punishment of removal fromservice was scaled down to withholding of four increments and of all other dues except salary. (6). A bare reading of the award shows that punishment of removal from service was substituted by withholding of four increments alone. If the intention had been to withhold all payments except salary by way of punishment in additionto withholding four increments, it would have been expressed by the CGIT in so many words. (6). A bare reading of the award shows that punishment of removal from service was substituted by withholding of four increments alone. If the intention had been to withhold all payments except salary by way of punishment in additionto withholding four increments, it would have been expressed by the CGIT in so many words. It is clear that the CGIT would have reinstated the employee in service but for his death and that it has expressed in clear words. Read in this context, the direction for payment of salary is in fact a direction for payment of all amounts due on the basis that the employee was reinstated from the date of removal from service and continued in employment till his death. In that view of the matter all the moneys which the deceased employee would have been entitled to receive for the period from his removal from service till the date of his death would be payable to the appellants and on the death of the employee all the benefits which the heirs of an employee dying in harness would be entitled to receive would also become payable to the appellants in respect of Late Trilok Chand treating him to have died in service on 14.5.1989. To our mind that is the correct interpretation of the award of the CGIT. (7). Moreover, since the petition is also under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India and as the LIC is undoubtedly included in the definition of `State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, even if the award of CGIT did not mean what we think it means, we would be within our rights to direct the LIC to pay the appellants on the above basis. After all, the lofty motto of LIC `Yogkshem Vahamyaham should not be taken to be addrened to the Policy Holders alone. It is expectedto be followed in respect of employees and families of deceased employees also. After all, the charge against the deceased employee was not one involving moral turpitude but of remaining on unauthorised absence from duty. Punishment of removal from service, especially when the explanation was of illness, was in fact shockingly disproportionate and the CGIT rightly scaled it down to withholding offour increments. After all, the charge against the deceased employee was not one involving moral turpitude but of remaining on unauthorised absence from duty. Punishment of removal from service, especially when the explanation was of illness, was in fact shockingly disproportionate and the CGIT rightly scaled it down to withholding offour increments. On substitution of the punishment the natural consequence would be that the employee would be taken to have been put back in service from the date of removal and he shall be deemed to have continued in service till his death. If the order of removal had not been passed initially and the punishment substituted by the CGIT had been awarded initially the employee would have factually, conti-nued in service till his death. That situation will have to be created now by a deeming fiction and the entire dues including those which accure on death of an employee while in service will have to be paid to the appellants by the LIC. (8). We therefore, allow this appeal. Set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and direct the respondent LIC to pay all the benefits, apart from salary alreadypaid to the appellants, on the basis that Late Shri Trilok Chand continued in service till his death on 14.5.1989. Thus whatever he would have been paid during his life time in addition to the salary as also whatever benefits which would accrue to his heirs on his death while in service would become due to the appellants. We do not consider it necessary or expedient to make any directions for employment on com-passionate grounds. As it is, the deceased employee was himself appointed on compassionate grounds on the death of his father who was also an employee of LIC dying in harness. As we have directed grant of all benefits deeming the deceased employee to have continued in service till his death, the LIC shall also consider the claim of any of the relatives in this regard, if permissible under therules or practice governing the subject. There shall be no order as to costs.