1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the father of the petitioner went missing on 23.7.2001 while he was working as Forester and posted at the Forest Division, Garhwa North under the Respondent No.3, Divisional Forest Officer, Northern Forest Division, Garhwa. Petitioner lodged a Sanha in the police station but inspite of all possible endeavour his father could not be located. Thereafter, necessary rituals relating to funeral were performed by the petitioner and his relatives. The respondents believing the death of the petitioner have also paid partial gratuity, insurance, provident fund and even started provisional pension since 24.7.2001 on 22.2.2008.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had made a claim for compassionate appointment on such ground of death of his father in harness. The respondents however refused to entertain such application on the ground that there was no declaration that the petitioner's father had died in harness. Petitioner, thereafter approached the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction in Title Suit No. 23 of 2009 for declaration of death of his father on 23.7.2001. Learned Sub Judge-1, Garhwa, vide judgment dated 29.6.2010(Annexure-1) decreed the suit in his favour holding that the plaintiff has been able to prove that his fate late Dinanath Pradhan was missing since 23.7.2001. Thereafter, the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected on 28.4.2011 vide Annexure-4 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Garhwa Northern Division on the ground that such relief cannot be accorded to the dependent of the employee who has gone missing in view of the circular of the Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand contained in letter-2-no. 409 dated 22.1.2008. Respondents in their counter affidavit have also enclosed the said letter as Annexure-A and also the proceedings of the Departmental Compassionate Appointment Committee in which the case of the petitioner was considered and refused on the same ground. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has justified the refusal of grant of compassionate appointment on the sole ground that in the case of a government employee gone missing there is no provision to grant compassionate appointment treating it to be case of deemed death. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon judgment rendered by learned Single Bench of Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17395 of 2011 in the case of Avinash Gupta Vrs. State of U.P. & others. He has also relied upon judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of the Uttaranchal High Court in Special Appeal No. 173 of 2008 in the case of Director General of Police and others Vrs. Banshidhar Bhatt delivered on 5.10.2009. He has further relied upon a judgment rendered by the learned Single Bench of this Court in W.P.S. No. 4946 of 2011 in the case of Podin Devi Vrs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & others. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 974 of 1995 in the case of The Chief Engineer, Central Zone, APSEB, Vijaywada and others Vrs. K. Naga Hema reported in Services Law Reporter 1995(8) 484. Based upon these judgments it is the contention of the petitioner that there is no distinction in case of civil death and natural death for the purpose of compassionate appointment as in both the cases the bread earner of the family is not there in the scene and the dependent of the deceased has been reduced to the state of penury. According to him in such cases the person is to be presumed to be dead by operation of law under Section 108 of Evidence Act. Therefore, no distinction can be drawn in the matter of such civil death and natural death in the matter-3 of consideration of claim for compassionate appointment by the respondents