Mukul Mudgal ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Order XXII, Rule 3 read withsection 151, Code of Civil Procedure application for bringing the legal heirs of thedeceased petitioner on record in the present writ petition. The writ petitionchallenges the petitioner s removal from service on 10/02/1981. The writpetition was filed thereafter in this Court on 21/02/1981. During thependency of the writ petition, the petitioner died on 21/01/1995 and thepresent application to bring the legal heirs on record was filed within 90 days. ( 2 ). The main plea of Mr. Ramesh Chandra, the learned Senior Counsel for therespondent No. 2 in opposing the substitution of the legal heirs on record is that evenif this Court were to set aside the dismissal and grant the reinstatement, it wouldbe open to respondent No. 2 to hold an inquiry afresh against the petitioner. Hefurther submits that the cause of action would not survive in such an eventualityand the substitution cannot then be permitted. In support of this plea he relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court reported in AIR 1966 Madras 260 (V 53 C 77)The aforesaid judgment held that in a writ petition filed by a dismissed employee praying for quashing of the dismissal order as being violative of the principles of natural justice, the charges against the petitioner/employee were not likely to bewiped out even by issue of a writ in his favour and consequently the bringingof legal heirs on recotherd by deceased employee/petitioner would at best lead to anissue of a futile writ as the petitioner did not have a legal right. With respect I amnot persuaded to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of themadras High Court. ( 3 ). There are at least three judgments, i. e. K. L. Bhasali v. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, PLR 19 (Vol. LXIX-1967) Delhi Section; Bhagwan Singh andothers v. Additional Director of Consolidation, Punjab, Ferozepore and Another,air 1968 Pandh 360 and lbrahimbhai Karimbhai and Others v. Stateof Gujarat, AIR 1968 Gujarat 202 which take a view contrary to the view taken bythe Madras High Court. ( 4 ). LXIX-1967) Delhi Section; Bhagwan Singh andothers v. Additional Director of Consolidation, Punjab, Ferozepore and Another,air 1968 Pandh 360 and lbrahimbhai Karimbhai and Others v. Stateof Gujarat, AIR 1968 Gujarat 202 which take a view contrary to the view taken bythe Madras High Court. ( 4 ). In the first decision i. e. K. L. Bhasali (supra) the Punjab High Court held thatthe law of abatement does not apply to the writ petitions under Article 226 of theconstitution and what is necessary to see is whether the right to sue is available tothe legal representatives. ( 5 ). In the second decision i. e. Bhagwan Singh and Others (supra) the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana held that in disposing of any application for bringing the legalheirs of a deceased petitioner on record, the Court will apply the principles ofjustice, equity and good conscience and may refuse to exercise its discretion if therewere inordinate delay and latches without a proper explanation. ( 6 ). In the third decision i. e. lbrahimbhai Karimbhai and Others (supra), adivision Bench of the Gujarat High Court held that in a writ petition filed by thedeceased petitioner challenging the reversion of the said deceased petitioner, theright to sue survived to the legal heirs. The Division Bench of Gujarat High Courtheld that the petitioner, and upon his death the legal heirs, would be entitled tosalary on an enhanced scale upon the reversion being set aside. The right to sue ,following the judgment of (1902) ILR 26 Bom. 597, Gopal Ganesh v. Ramchandrasadashiv, was construed rightly, to mean the right to obtain the relief which thedeceased had prayed for. ( 7 ). It is obvious that the view taken in the above three judgments lays down thecorrect position of the law as it is clear that the right of sue survives in favour of thepetitioner s legal heirs because as and when the order of dismissal is held void thepetitioner s legal heirs have the right to recover dues up to the date of his death uponreinstatement. In fact if the view propounded by the respondent is upheld it wouldput a premium on delay and put an end to a litigation even if the petitioner has agood case. In fact if the view propounded by the respondent is upheld it wouldput a premium on delay and put an end to a litigation even if the petitioner has agood case. The plea of the learned Counsel for the petitioner of initiating a freshenquiry does not take into account the fact that the petitioner is dead and furtherpresupposes that such an enquiry is bound to find the employee guilty. In case thefresh enquiry by the employer were to find the employee as not culpable then hislegal heirs would be left with no recourse even on the impugned order of dismissalbeing found illegal. Such a plea does not subserve the ends of justice and on thecontrary leads to injustice. ( 8 ). I, therefore, respectfully disagree with the view taken by the learned Singlejudge of the Madras High Court and follow the position of law laid down by thehigh Court of Punjab and Haryana and Gujarat. ( 9 ). Accordingly, the application is allowed. Necessary and consequentamendment in cause title and memo of parties be made. CM 2773/95 stands disposed of. ( 10 ). In view of the above observations, the application (C. M. 2773-A/95) is alsoallowed. The same is disposed of. CW 394/81as this writ petition pertains to the year 1981, accordingly it may be listed forfinal hearing at the end of the list on 23/03/1999. Application allowed.