Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 703 (AP)

B. v. Rama Lakshmi VS A. P. S. R. T. C.

2014-06-10

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

body2014
Judgment : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, apart from perusing the record. Though the issue involved in the present writ petition lies in a narrow compass, it arises under peculiar circumstances requiring some consideration. In any event, having heard the respective counsel for the parties, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage. Shorn of extraneous particulars, the facts in brief are that the 1st petitioner’s husband, who was working as a Driver in the respondent Corporation, was initially subjected to certain disciplinary proceedings by the respondent Corporation. The charge is said to be concerning unauthorised absence for five days. Eventually, not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the husband of the 1st petitioner, the disciplinary authority, having held that the charge had been proved, removed him from service through order dated 08.07.2013. Aggrieved thereby, though the 1st petitioner’s husband took recourse to intradepartmental appeal, it was also dismissed on 11.11.2013. Eventually, when the husband of the 1st petitioner filed revision before the 2nd respondent, it was taken up for consideration. It further emerges from the record that when the 2nd respondent was about to dispose of the said revision application, the husband of the 1st petitioner died on 11.02.2014. Oblivious of the said fact, the 2nd respondent allowed the revision on 13.02.2014 directing the authorities concerned to reinstate the husband of the 1st petitioner into service with a further condition attached thereto that there shall be stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Since the reinstatement could not be given effect to owing to the death of the 1st petitioner’s husband, the 1st petitioner approached the authorities and requested them to treat as if her husband died in service and accordingly settle the terminal benefits and death benefits in her favour. It appears that the respondent authorities have informed the 1st petitioner that in the light of the death of her husband while the order of removal was subsisting, the 1st petitioner is not entitled to any benefits. Under these circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. It appears that the respondent authorities have informed the 1st petitioner that in the light of the death of her husband while the order of removal was subsisting, the 1st petitioner is not entitled to any benefits. Under these circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the revisional authority has considered the whole issue on merits and decided to set aside the punishment of removal, thereby imposing a modified punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. According to the learned counsel, even though the very order was passed just prior to the death of the husband of the 1st petitioner, it came to be signed only subsequently, as has been the practice of the administrative side. As such, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order is deemed to have been passed when the 1st petitioner’s husband was alive. On the other hand, the learned counsel has contended that passing of an order soon after the death of the employee would not affect its finality, and at best, it is a technical error, which could be corrected. Accordingly, the learned counsel has sought a direction to the authorities to settle the terminal benefits of the deceased employee in favour of the petitioners, treating as if the husband of the 1st petitioner died in harness, on his notional reinstatement. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that for all practical purposes, the order dated 13.02.2014 of the revisional authority, having been passed after the death of the delinquent employee i.e., the husband of the 1st petitioner, is a nullity and ipso facto no rights arise out of the same. The learned counsel has also contended that this Court, while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not be inclined to provide any benefits based on an order, which is non est. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel urges this Court to dismiss the petition having been devoid of merit. Indeed there is no gainsaying the fact that any order that has been passed after the death of a party to the proceedings is a nullity. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel urges this Court to dismiss the petition having been devoid of merit. Indeed there is no gainsaying the fact that any order that has been passed after the death of a party to the proceedings is a nullity. This being a common law principle, it is incumbent on the part of this Court to examine the purpose involved behind the said proposition of law. If any order, passed subsequent to the death of a party to the lis is to be treated as operative, there could be an incongruous situation where an obligation might have been cast on a dead person. To avoid such logjam or a situation of impossible performance, the Courts, through various judicial pronouncements, have established what is now a well settled legal principle in common law parlance that no proceedings passed against or in favour of a dead person should have any effect, thus rendering themselves a nullity. Having accepted the said proposition, it could be seen that in the present instance there are two alternatives available to the parties to the present writ petition. Since the petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased employee representing his estate, could as well approach the authorities once again and continue the proceedings from the date of the death of the deceased employee bringing themselves on record as revision petitioners. In such an event, the revisional authority is required to pass orders afresh. At this juncture, it is to be stressed that while passing the orders once again on a mere technicality, the revisional authority may not be contradicting himself when it comes to the merits of the matter. Under those circumstances, in my considered view, issuing a direction to the revisional authority to bring the petitioners on record and pass orders afresh is a technical rigmarole; and, at best, an exercise in futility. While considering the second option, it can be stated that in any service dispute involving the benefits accruing to the estate of the employee, in an event of the employees’ death pending proceedings, the benefits arising therefrom the said deceased employee was entitled, would be treated as his estate, which can be represented by his legal heirs and representatives. While considering the second option, it can be stated that in any service dispute involving the benefits accruing to the estate of the employee, in an event of the employees’ death pending proceedings, the benefits arising therefrom the said deceased employee was entitled, would be treated as his estate, which can be represented by his legal heirs and representatives. Once those successors are agreeable to take the benefits on final disposal of the list along with the liabilities attached to the estate, the mere technicality of having a retrial of the issue on the premise that the charged officer died before the lis could be effectively disposed of would be in my considered view, iniquitous. It is well established that every procedure is contemplated to subserve and advance the cause of justice. In this case, the petitioners have come forward accepting the order passed in revision in its entirety and have further agreed to the modified punishment i.e., stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. In these circumstances, it can safely be stated that the order is operative and does not render itself a nullity. In the above facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities to treat, in terms of revisional order dated 13.02.2014, as if the husband of the 1st petitioner died in harness, subject to the modified punishment imposed on him and, accordingly, settle the terminal benefits and death benefits in favour of the petitioners. Needless to say that given the penurious circumstances of the petitioners, the respondent authorities may complete the entire exercise of settling the terminal benefits and death benefits of the husband of the 1st petitioner as expeditiously as possible. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.