1. Appeal against High Court order directing compassionate appointment by treating the date of disappearance of an employee as the date of death. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1882
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
The Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Lalita & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14786 of 2024
Decided On : 29-10-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Chitra Parande, Adv. Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR Mr. Nilakanta Nayak, Adv. Mr. Amit Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kaushal Narayan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Chitra Parande, Adv. Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR Mr. Nilakanta Nayak, Adv. Mr. Amit Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kaushal Narayan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Civil death – Decree of declaration of civil death only recognizes the fact that person is presumed to be dead after expiry of seven years of disappearance, without fixing any precise date or time of death.
(2) Compassionate appointment – When claimant has accepted that his father had retired, he cannot claim compassionate appointment.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 108 – Civil death – Decree of declaration of civil death only recognizes the fact that person is presumed to be dead after expiry of seven years of disappearance, without fixing any precise date or time of death – He will be presumed to be dead on expiry of 7 years from date he disappeared or went missing unless contrary or specific date of death is proved by adducing cogent evidence. (Paras 7 and 8)
(B) Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Civil death of employee – Despite having gone missing, he was treated to be in continuous service and he duly retired on 31.01.2015 – Family members were paid all retiral dues and have also been receiving monthly pension – In these circumstances, when respondent has accepted that his father had retired, he cannot claim compassionate appointment – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court set aside – However, appellants given liberty to consider case of respondent for appointment for any suitable post within its jurisdiction, independent of claim for compassionate appointment, if necessary by granting age relaxation, provided same is otherwise permissible in law. (Paras 9, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
This is an appeal preferred by appellants assailing the judgment and order dated 18.07.2024, passed by High Court in Writ Petition No. 913 of 2024. High Court directed appellants to issue an appointment order to respondent No.2, Shubham(son) on a suitable post.
Findings of Court:
High Court manifestly erred in directing appellants to straight away grant compassionate appointment to respondent No.2, instead of directing them to consider his case for compassionate appointment and thereafter to extend appointment, upon satisfaction of prescribed conditions.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Judgement Key Points
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key legal points:
-
Civil Death: A decree declaring civil death only presumes that a person is dead after seven years of disappearance, without establishing an exact date or time of death. The death is presumed to occur after the expiry of seven years from the date the person went missing unless specific evidence of the actual date or time of death is provided (!) (!) .
-
Presumption of Civil Death: The legal presumption is that the individual is dead after seven years of disappearance, and this presumption can only be rebutted with cogent evidence proving a specific date or time of death. The burden of proof lies on the party asserting the actual date or time of death (!) .
-
Effect of Civil Death Decree: The decree of civil death recognizes the person as presumed dead after seven years of disappearance but does not specify the actual date of death. As such, the date of death remains uncertain unless proven otherwise (!) .
-
Treatment During Disappearance: Despite having gone missing, the individual is considered to be in continuous service until retirement, with all retiral benefits paid and pensions received. Acceptance of retirement and receipt of family benefits imply acknowledgment of the individual's presumed death after the statutory period (!) (!) .
-
Claim for Compassionate Appointment: When family members accept the retirement and benefits of the missing employee, they cannot claim compassionate appointment based solely on the presumption of civil death. The entitlement to such an appointment is contingent upon satisfying the prescribed conditions, which were not met in this case (!) (!) (!) .
-
Court’s Approach to Consideration of Appointment: The court emphasized that the authorities should consider the case for appointment on any suitable post independently of the claim for compassionate appointment, possibly including age relaxations, provided it is otherwise permissible in law. The court set aside the direction to grant immediate compassionate appointment and clarified that the decision should be made after proper consideration (!) (!) .
-
Court’s Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s order directing immediate appointment was set aside. The matter was remitted for the authorities to consider the case for suitable employment independently, without presuming the date of death to be the date of disappearance (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with legal implications.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether the date of disappearance constitutes the date of death and whether acceptance of retiral benefits precludes claims for compassionate appointment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Civil death decrees without specific dates do not fix death on the date of disappearance; acceptance of retirement benefits precludes compassionate appointment claims. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 )
4. Under Section 108, Indian Evidence Act, civil death is presumed after seven years of disappearance unless a specific date is proved by cogent evidence. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. High Court order set aside; compassionate appointment denied, but employer may consider the candidate for other suitable posts with age relaxation. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. How is the date of death determined in cases of civil death?
The date of death must be determined based on direct or circumstantial evidence, not mere presumption. A decree of declaration of civil death recognizes the presumption of death after seven years of disappearance without fixing a precise date or time of death. (Para 7 )
7. What is the legal presumption regarding death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
In cases of civil death, a person is presumed to be dead upon the expiry of seven years from the date they went missing, unless a contrary or specific date of death is proved by adducing cogent evidence. (Para 8 )
8. Does the acceptance of retiral benefits by a family preclude a claim for compassionate appointment?
Yes, when family members accept the retirement of the employee and receive retiral dues and monthly pensions, they cannot subsequently claim compassionate appointment. (Para 9 )
9. What is the correct judicial approach when directing an employer regarding compassionate appointment?
The court should not direct the immediate grant of compassionate appointment but should instead direct the employer to consider the case and extend the appointment upon satisfaction of prescribed conditions. (Para 10 )
JUDGMENT
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants assailing the judgment and order dated 18.07.2024, passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 913 of 2024. The High Court directed the appellants to issue an appointment order to respondent No.2, Shubham(son) on a suitable post, by treating the date of death of the father of respondent No.2, Gulab Mahagu Bawankule as 01.09.2012 i.e., the day on which he went missing.
3. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the date on which the father of respondent No.2 went missing i.e. 01.09.2012, cannot be treated as the date of his death. In cases of civil death, a person will be presumed to be dead only if his whereabouts are not heard of for seven years from the date the person went missing. Therefore, the High Court manifestly erred in treating the date on which the father went missing as the date of his death. There is no evidence on record to prove the date of his death.
4. It is further submitted that the date of civil death of father of the respondent No.2 would, in fact, be 01.09.2019, i.e., on the expiry of seven years period from the date he went missing. During the period he was missing, he was treated to be in service and he duly retired on 31.01.2015. The family was extended all retiral benefits amounting to Rs.6,49,000/-(Rupees six lakhs forty-nine thousand only) and odd. Additionally, the family is receiving monthly pension of Rs.12,000/-(Rupees twelve thousand only). Since, the family member(s) including respondent no. 2 have accepted the retirement of father and his retiral dues, it is not open for respondent No.2 to claim compassionate appointment.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent(s),in defence, contended that the respondent No.2 could not have sought a decree declaring the death of his father prior to 2019, as the statutory period of seven years had to first elapse. It is therefore, submitted that the decree declaring the death of his father passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Nagpur on 11.01.2022, would, in effect, relate back to the date on which his father went missing.
6. We have perused the decree of the Civil Court dated 11.01.2022. It records that the father of the respondent No.2, Gulab Mahagu Bawankule, went missing on 01.09.2012. Consequently, the suit was decreed, thereby declaring him to be dead. However, the decree is completely silent on the specific date of death of the father of the respondent No.2. The civil court has not declared him to be dead as on 01.09.2012.
7. In LIC Vs. Anuradha, (2004) 10 SCC 131 it has been laid down in matters of civil death, the question of the date or time of the death must be determined on the basis of direct or circumstantial evidence, and not on mere assumption or presumption. The burden to prove the date or time of the death lies upon the person who makes such an assertion of death. It has been further clarified in the aforesaid case that the decree of declaration of civil death only recognizes the fact that the person is presumed to be dead after expiry of seven years of disappearance, without fixing any precise date or time of death.
8. In the instant case, the respondent No. 2 has not asserted any specific date or time of the death of his father, nor has he adduced any evidence in this regard. Therefore, the date or time of the death of the father of the respondent No.2 remains uncertain. Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states that in cases of civil death, the death will be presumed to be after the expiry of seven years from the date the person went missing. Hence, as per Section 108, he will be presumed to be dead on the expiry of 7 years from the date he disappeared or went missing unless contrary or specific date of death is proved by adducing cogent evidence.
9. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the father of the respondent No.2 would be deemed to have died a civil d
