Back
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
(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.
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.
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
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
