Legal representatives must inform the court of a deceased party's death; failing to do so renders subsequent orders nullities and void.

JUDGMENT :

(Judgment of the Court was made by Dr.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.)

The present impleading petition seeks to bring on record Mrs.R. Vasantha, the wife of the deceased Mr. R. Rajendran (second petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 13750 of 2016), as the sixth respondent in W.A.(MD)No.1848 of 2024. Mr. R. Rajendran passed away intestate on 04.01.2020 during the pendency of the writ petition, though his demise was not brought to the Court's attention when the writ petition came to be finally disposed of on 16.11.2023.

2. The impleading petition, filed on 21.10.2024 while the Writ Appeal was pending, was subsequently listed only on 18.11.2024 after the Writ Appeal had been disposed of on 11.11.2024.

3. The original writ petition, W.P.(MD) No. 13750 of 2016, was filed by three employees of the second respondent, the Transport Corporation, seeking implementation of G.O. Ms. No. 146, dated 30.11.2015. This included their re-designation as Selection Grade Superintendents and a revised pay scale under the 6th Pay Commission and associated arrears and benefits. The second petitioner, Mr R. Rajendran, passed away on 04.01.2020, but the writ petition was decided on 16.11.2023 as if he were still alive.

4. The failure to bring the death of the second petitioner to the Court's attention reflects procedural lapses on the part of the legal representatives of the deceased second petitioner, the remaining petitioners, and their counsel. Although the impleading petition was filed and duly numbered, it was not promptly listed, and counsel for the petitioners did not take adequate steps to address this oversight. The Writ Appeal proceeded to final disposal under the presumption that the deceased second respondent was still alive.

5. Upon being mentioned on 18.11.2024, the insufficiency of the supporting affidavit for the impleading petition was noted, prompting a direction for the submission of a better affidavit. Following its filing, the petition was listed again on 06.12.2024. The petitioners now seek to implead the legal representative of the deceased second petitioner post facto, as if the death occurred during the pendency of the Writ Appeal, whereas it happened during the writ petition stage.

6. Notably, the caveat petition filed on 26.02.2024 (Caveat No. 487 of 2024) explicitly recorded the death of the second petitioner. Despite this, the deceased individual was named as a respondent in the condone delay petition (CMP No. 11285 of 2024) filed by the Transport Department, which was ordered without proper verification of parties.

7. The Writ Appeal was numbered as W.A.(MD) No. 1848 of 2024 and disposed of on 11.11.2024 on merits, treating the deceased second respondent as a party. However, before the final order dated 11.11.2024 was dispatched by the Registry, it was brought to our notice that the second respondent had already expired and hence, the writ appeal was once again listed under the caption 'for being spoken to' on 18.11.2024. At this juncture, it was represented that the second respondent had expired on 04.01.2020 itself, which is even prior to passing of the final orders in W.P.(MD) No.13750 of 2016. This glaring procedural defect raises critical questions concerning the validity of the orders passed at various stages of these proceedings: (i) What is the effect of the final order dated 16.11.2023 in W.