JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Briefly, stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner was working as Lekhpal in Tehsil Sambhal, District Moradabad till 23.8.1992. By the order of the District Magistrate dated 31.7.1992, he was transferred from Tehsil Sambhal to Tehsil Hasanpur. According to the respondents, the petitioner became absent. Therefore, on account of long absence, his services were terminated by order dated 23.7.1997. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was allowed and the order of termination was set aside. The Appellate Authority directed the Deputy Collector to pass a fresh order after holding inquiry and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Deputy Collector vide order dated 31.8.1998 appointed Shri Hari Shanker, Tehsildar Hasanpur as Inquiry Officer and directed the petitioner to participate in the inquiry. However, without reference to any inquiry report, the Deputy Collector passed an order dated 10.5.2002 holding that his earlier order dated 23.7.1997 dismissing the petitioner from service, is correct and warrants no interference. Aggrieved with this order dated 10.5.2002, the petitioner filed Writ-A No. 30676 of 2002 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 14.2.2019 but observation to the following effect has also been made in that order: ''However, it is always open to respondents to pass a fresh order after holding inquiry and giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner, in accordance with law.'' 3. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died. It appears that he was substituted by his wife-Smt. Shanti Devi. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the ground that the order dated 23.7.1997 has disappeared after the order of the Appellate Authority and therefore, it was not open to Deputy Collector to reiterate and uphold non-est dismissal order dated 23.7.1997. 4. It is admitted to the respondents that the petitioner-Laxman Singh (since deceased) had died during pendecy of the writ petition. In the case of Basudeo Tiwary vs. SIDO Kanhu University and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 194 (Para 14), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: ''the appellant has since demised during pendency of these proceedings, no further direction as to further enquiry or reinstatement can be given.'' 5. In the case of Basudeo Tiwary vs. SIDO Kanhu University and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 194 (Para 14), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: ''the appellant has since demised during pendency of these proceedings, no further direction as to further enquiry or reinstatement can be given.'' 5. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner had filed a modification application which had been rejected by the order dated 7.9.2021 on the ground that the heirs of the original petitioner were brought on record and nothing restrained the petitioners from placing reliance on that decision at that time i.e. at the time of hearing of the writ petition. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and we find that the contention of the petitioner-appellant deserves to be accepted in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basudeo Tiwary (supra). The law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and as such even if the judgment was not cited by the substituted heir of the original petitioner at the time of disposal of the writ petition on 14.2.2019, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled for benefit of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. For the reasons aforestated, the following portion of the impugned order dated 14.2.2019 is hereby set aside: ''However, it is always open to respondents to pass a fresh order after holding inquiry and giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner, in accordance with law.'' 8. The special appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.