Departmental Appeal Not Automatically Abated Upon Death Of Employee, Denial Of Post Terminal Benefits Has Consequences On Heirs: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that departmental appeal is not automatically abated upon death of the employee as the order in such proceedings has serious civil consequences and affects the post terminal benefits on the legal heirs of the deceased employee.

Noting that the employer-employee relationship ends with the retirement/ death of the employee, Justice Ajit Kumar held,

“In the circumstances, therefore, an employee if is working in establishment, which may be a pensionable establishment and where the family pension rights are also vested with the dependents of the family or otherwise also where the dues are inherited by the dependents of the employee by succession, such cause of action would survive till the last available statutory remedy is exhausted. Even an employee's successor is entitled to question an order of the disciplinary authority as it has serious adverse civil consequences resulting in the denial of post terminal dues including right of compassionate appointment.”

Petitioner, wife of deceased, approached the High Court against the dismissal of departmental appeal merely because the employee, her husband, had passed away. Relying on Rule 11 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, it was argued that there was no provision for abatement and appeal ought to have been decided on merits. It was argued that the since the monitory consequences would be inherited by the heirs if the termination is set aside, the concept of abatement would not apply in service jurisprudence.

The Court observed that no rule provided for the delinquent employee to appear before the appellate authority. Though the employee-employer relationship ends with ending of the contract, the Court held that there was no substitution required as in service law the legal heirs automatically succeeded to get the dues of the employee.

Holding that heir is entitled to question the dismissal order which has adverse civil consequences, the Court held that “the appellate authority was not justified in rejecting the appeal following the principles of civil law of abatement where upon the death of a party, the actionable claim comes to an end unless and until heirs in succession pursued the same.”

Accordingly, the Court restored the appeal and directed that it be within two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

Case Title: Smt. Munni v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 2479 of 2025]

Click Here To Read/Download Order