JUDGMENT :

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

Heard the leaned Counsel for the parties.

2. The present intra court appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 02.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 6835 of 2017, whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant was dismissed.

3. CWJC No. 6835 of 2017 was filed by the appellant, seeking following reliefs:

“2.i) That the order bearing memo no. 2 dated 11.04.2016 issued by the respondent no. 4, District Magistrate, Rohtas contained in annexure-8 may be quashed.

ii) That the respondents may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of order dated 03.01.2014 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 17571/2012 contained in annexure-6.

iii) That any other relief or reliefs may be allowed which will be just, proper and equitable on the opinion of this Hon’ble Court.”

4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant’s father, while serving on a Class-IV post, was kidnapped on 02.12.1999. An FIR was lodged by the appellant’s mother vide Rajpur P.S. Case No. 156/1999 under Sections 364/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and, upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted. Thereafter, the appellant’s mother applied for compassionate appointment, which was recommended by the Rajpur Police Station, and by the S.D.O., Bikramganj, vide Letter No. 910 dated 13.07.2009, before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. Thereafter, Committee rejected the appellant’s claim. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred C.W.J.C. No. 17571 of 2012, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with a direction to the authorities concerned to reconsider the matter. Pursuant thereto, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Rohtas, again rejected the appellant’s claim vide Memo No. 02 dated 11.04.2016. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred C.W.J.C. No. 6835 of 2017, which came to be dismissed on 02.09.2024.

5. The learned single judge in CWJC No. 6835 of 2017, passed the following order, after hearing the parties and upon consideration of the materials available on record:

“15. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to brought on record any evidence in respect of his claimin accordance with the statutory provision contained in Section 108 of the Act. The petitioner has relied on order dated 19.09.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No.589 of 2019 (Rajiv Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar)by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the Co- ordinate Bench relying on the judgment passed in the case of Kundan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in (2017) 4 PLJR 625, in which following observations have been made which is inter alia reproduced hereinafter:

“In view of decision in the case of Kundan Kumar(supra) taken note of hereinabove this Court would observe that to avoid such delay and consideration in such matters arising out of civil death authorities may consider the desirability of issuing appropriate guidelines in this regard from the General Administration Department to the various compassionate appointment committees in light of the decision in the case of Kundan Kumar (supra). Such an observation is being recorded so that claim for compassionate appointment can be considered compassionately and without going through unnecessary delay in seeking guidance individually. These observations are not to be treated as directions and are subjected to exercise of discretion by the State Government in this regard.”

16. I find it apt to reproduce paragraph no. 14 to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of L.I.C. of India vs. Anuradha reported in 2004 (10) SCC 131, which is, inter alia, reproduced hereinafter:

14. On the basis of the abovesaid authorities, we unhesitatingly arrive at a conclusion which we sum up in the following words: the law as to presumption of death remains the same whether in the common law of England or in the statutory provisions contained in Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence