IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1219 of 2009 5 29.3.2010 1. Mostt. Phulmati Devi, widow of late Saryug Ram 2. Vishwanath Ram 3. Baidyanath Ram 4. Shambhu Ram All sons of late Saryug Ram, resident of Gajpura, P.S. Motihari Mufassil, in the district of East Champaran, Motihari proposed heirs of deceased writ petitioner - Appellants VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Directgor, Panchyat Raj, Bihar, Patna 4. District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari ..... Respondents- Respondents -------- Learned counsel for the appellants is permitted to make correction in the name of appellant no.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. By the order under appeal dated 4.8.2009, writ petition preferred by one Saryug Ram bearing CWJC No.5026 of 2005, was dismissed on the ground that due to death of the sole petitioner Saryug Ram, it had become incompetent. The application filed by the appellants, who are heirs and legal representatives of late Saryug Ram, 2 seeking substitution in his place was rejected on the ground that right to sue would not survive because the writ petition had been filed questioning the legality of termination of service from the post of Panchayat Sevak and the removal was on the ground of appointment being vitiated by fraud. Leaned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants, even if they succeed in challenging the order of termination of Saryug Ram, cannot claim the right of reinstatement and future service but being the heirs and legal representatives, they should be permitted to assail the validity of the termination order so that if they are successful, they may get the benefit of family pension etc. which may accrue in favour of Saryug Ram if it is found that his termination was illegal. After hearing the parties we find substance in the submission. If the prayer would have been only for reinstatement, then the right to sue would not have survived but in the facts of the case, the termination order affects the estate of the deceased and hence, his heirs and legal representatives can claim that the right to sue the 3 order of termination survives to their benefit also. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order under challenge dated 4.8.2009 is set aside. As a result, the writ petition bearing CWJC No.5026 of 2005 will be reheard on merits and decided in accordance with law after allowing the prayer for substitution made by the appellants. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.) sk