Point of law: 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

ORDER :

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“......to issue a Writ, Order or Directions more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus:

(a) Call for the records relating to and connected with Memo in Rc. No. A2/24391/2009, dated 15-04-2011 issued by respondent No. 2 and set aside the same as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and discriminatory.

(b) Direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Record Assistant with effect from date on which his colleagues and juniors were regularized with all consequential benefits such as fixation of pay, arrears of salary and seniority etc.”

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2.

3. During the pendency of this writ petition, the original writ petitioner (T. Subbaiah) left this world on 12.11.2017 leaving behind his wife, two minor children and old aged father and mother. The wife of the deceased petitioner filed I.A. No. 1 of 2018 before this Court to come on record as legal heir of the deceased petitioner. By order of this Court, dated 08.12.2020, she was brought on record as legal representative of the deceased petitioner by impleading as petitioner No. 2.

4. Since the Petitioner died during the pendency of this Writ Petition, is now represented by his Wife. However, for the purpose of convenience, we shall refer to him as Petitioner in the course of this order.

5. Heard Sri. J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri. K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing counsel for Respondent No. 3.

6. Sri. J. Sudheer, learned counsel submits that that the respondent No. 2 rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services without considering the fact that the petitioner was kept out of service from 1997 to 2008 without any basis and though the colleagues of the petitioner and his juniors regularized at the relevant time, the claim of the petitioner was rejected illegally by the respondent No. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was obligatory on the part of the respondent No. 2 to put back the petitioner in the same situation as his colleagues and juniors were placed in view of the Order passed by the Respondent No. 1 vide G.O.Rt. No. 1387, dated 01.07.2008 directing to reinstate the petitioner as Record Assistant. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 failed to consider that the petitioner cannot be penalized for the illegal action of the respondents in terminating the services and dragging the issue for almost a decade and that the petitioner was entitled to be treated with his colleagues and juniors.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner having died during the pendency of this writ petition, and now the wife of the petitioner came on record as L.R. sought direction of this court to grant all benefits including consequential benefits for which the petitioner is entitled in favour of his Wife i.e. Petitioner No. 2 herein.

8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent No. 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner could have been regularized as Attender only even in the absence of criminal case and an NMR cannot be directly appointed as Record Assistant. She further submits that the services of other petitioners in W.P. No. 6484 of 1998, were regularized in the cadre of Attenders and thereafter promoted as Record Assistants. The learned Government Pleader finally submits that at best, the petitioner could have been regularized as attender only as he was an NMR at that point of time as per the stand taken in counter affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 3 also argued supporting the contentions of the learned Government Pleader.

9. After hearing the learned counsel for both sides and on perusal of the material available on recor