1 S.B.CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.117/1984. Hazari Lal Bansal (since deceased) through LRs. VERSUS Life Insurance Corporation. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.117/1984. Hazari Lal Bansal (since deceased) through LRs. VERSUS Life Insurance Corporation. 28.01.2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Anurag Sharma, for the appellant. Mr.Anil Mehta, for the respondent. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the plaintiff whose suit for declaration that his removal from service was wrongful and payment of salary and other emoluments consequent upon re-instatement was dismissed by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 20.01.1984. The suit was filed by the plaintiff as a pauper and even this appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff- appellant as an indigent person. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant Hazari Lal Bansal died and thereafter his legal representatives appellant Nos.1/1 to 1/4 were brought on record. During the pendency of the appeal, the widow of the appellant 2 S.B.CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.117/1984. Hazari Lal Bansal (since deceased) through LRs. VERSUS Life Insurance Corporation. Smt.Sarojani Devi also died on 28.10.2001 and this appeal is now being prosecuted by the children of the deceased. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the record, I find that the suit was filed challenging the order of removal from service passed by the respondent-Corporation against the deceased appellant passed in the year 1970. The said order was upheld in the departmental appeal by two appellate authorities. It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent before the court that in view of the death of the appellant, the relief which has been claimed in the suit cannot be allowed to the appellants who are now the legal representatives of the deceased, therefore, the appeal has become infructuous. With a view to appreciate the above, it is necessary that the relief which has been sought for may be examined. In para 26 of the plaint, the deceased plaintiff had claimed the following relief:- “26. The plaintiff, therefore, prays that a decree be passed as under:- (a) It may be declared that the plaintiff's 3 S.B.CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.117/1984. Hazari Lal Bansal (since deceased) through LRs. VERSUS Life Insurance Corporation. removal from service of the Life Insurance Corporation is void and inoperative and the plaintiff be declared to be in the service of Life Insurance Corporation, since 7-2-70 and onwards. (b) That the plaintiff is further entitled to a decree for Rs.36,400/- as detailed in para 23 above against the defendants. (c) That the plaintiff be awarded future pay and emoluments till the date of his retirement at the age of 60 years. (d) That the costs of the suit be awarded against the defendants. (e) That any other relief to which the plaintiff is found to be entitled may be awarded.” All the above reliefs which have been claimed in the plaint are dependent upon the fact that the order of removal from service passed against the deceased plaintiff-appellant be set aside and he be re-instated from the date of his removal from service i.e. 07.02.1970. Since the plaintiff-appellant has died and even if the order of his removal from service is set aside, the deceased could not have been re-instated and he could not have claimed any benefit unless he would have rejoined service. Even otherwise, on the principle of “No work no pay”, the deceased would not have been entitled to any back wages. In the facts and 4 S.B.CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.117/1984. Hazari Lal Bansal (since deceased) through LRs. VERSUS Life Insurance Corporation. circumstances, therefore, I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that no effective relief can be granted to the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff-appellant. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that at least compensation could have been awarded is also not tenable as the right to seek compensation is also personal to the deceased and that would not enure to benefit of heirs and successors as there was no decree in favour of the deceased at the time of his death. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous in view of the death of the original plaintiff-appellant. There shall be no order as to costs. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.