The right to sue in a writ petition challenging an order of removal from service is purely personal and does not survive to the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under O. 22 R. 3 C. P. C. by the petitioners to bring them on record as the legal representatives of the deceased writ petitioner in Writ Petition 1571 of 1976.

( 2 ) THE deceased writ petitioner was working in the South Central Railway Employees, Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Secunderabad, as its Secretary. Certain charges were framed against him on 30/03/1973. Pending the investigation and enquiry into those charges he was placed under suspension from 11-1-1973. Ultimately the charges were held to be proved and by an order dated 29-3-1976, he was removed from service. The petitioner thereupon filed the writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of removal.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the writ petition of the petitioner died on 12-11-1976. This petition has been filed by his wife and children praying that they may be brought on record as his legal representatives and allowed to continue the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent-Society through its Secretary it is contended that the right to sue or to continue the writ petition does not survive to the petitioners legal representatives and hence the writ petition has to be dismissed as having abate.

( 4 ) UNDER the Rules framed under Art. 226 of the Constitution it is provided that except in so far as express provision is made by the rules, all other rules relating to causes and matters coming before the appellate side of the High Court will apply to the writ petitions in so far as they are not inconsistent with these rules (Vide R. 20 of the Rules framed under Art. 226 ). Hence the provisions of O. 22 R. 3 C. P. C. would apply to a petition to bring on record the legal representatives of a deceased petitioner. Order 22 R. 3 provides that where one of the two or more plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives, the Court on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. It is therefore seen that a legal representative of a deceased plaintiff would be entitled to proceed with the suit only if the right to sue survives on the death of the plaintiff. It is well settled that where the right is purely personal, the right to sue does not survive, actio personalis moritur cum persona. In this case the grievance of the petitioner is that his removal from service is illegal. There can be no doubt that this is a purely personal action and hence the right to sue in such a case does not survive. It is however, argued by Shri Venugopal Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that if the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, he will be entitled to be reinstated in service and as a consequence he will be entitled to receive the salary from the date he was placed under suspension until he is reinstated. The writ petition must therefore be deemed to be also in respect of the recovery of salary and other emoluments attached to the office. Such a right would devolve upon the petitioners heirs if the petitioner dies during the pendency of the writ petition and hence they must be permitted to continue the proceedings even though the relief of reinstatement to the office cannot certainly be granted in favour of the legal representatives.

( 5 ) IN our view this question is concluded by the decision of a Division Bench, of this Court in T. N. Venkatanathachari v. State of A. P. , (1969) 1 Andh WR 1. In that case the writ petitioner challenged an order imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. When he died during the pendency of the writ petition, his legal representatives sought to come on record to continue the proceedings. It was held that the relief sought by the petitioner was purely personal to him it involved his continuance