The legal principle established is that in cases of civil death, the dependent of the deceased employee is entitled to compassionate appointment and retirement benefits as per the National Coal Wage Agreement and Section 108 of the Evidence Act.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is widow of late Lal Mohan Prasad, who went missing on 05.06.2003 after leaving his house to attend his office as a piece rated worker at Kargali Washery Project of the respondent-CCL. A 'sanha' was also lodged being S.D.E. No. 434 dated 24.08.2003 as a report of his missing. The petitioner's husband never appeared thereafter and after completion of seven years of his missing, she sought declaration of civil death of her husband through Title Suit No. 01 of 2011 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bermo at Tenughat. Apart from dependents of the employee, the State of Jharkhand and the respondent-Central Coalfields Ltd. were also impleaded as party in the said suit. CCL had also appeared as defendant and contested the suit on merit. The learned Trial Court framed seven issues and after considering the rival evidences, pleadings and submissions of the plaintiffs and defendants, chose to decree the suit vide judgment dated 30.11.2012, Annexure-G to the counter affidavit and decree dated 01.12.2012 to the effect that Lal Mohan Prasad S/O Late Gouri Shankar Prasad resident of village-Nawadih, PS- Nawadih, District-Bokaro being husband of the plaintiff no. 1 and father of the plaintiff no. 2 to 4 had died civil death. After such declaration, the petitioner made a claim for compassionate appointment before the respondent on 19.01.2013 and also made a claim for death-cum-retiral dues i.e. pension and any other admissible dues which had remained outstanding. Her representation is contained at Annexure-7 series. She has approached this Court thereafter as not only the claim for compassionate appointment and death cum retirement dues have not been redressed but also for challenging the ex-parte order of termination of petitioner's husband dated 17.1.2005 imposed by the respondent no.3, the Project Officer, Kargali Washery Project, CCL, Bermo, Bokaro on the basis of charge-sheet dated 19.6.2003 issued on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty since 5.6.2003.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of termination cannot be upheld in the eye of law as in the wake of the declaration of Civil Death of her husband, after he went missing on 5.6.2003, any Departmental proceeding initiated for the alleged unauthorized absence would have no meaning in the eye of law. The order of termination therefore effected in ex-parte proceeding would also be of no legal consequence as the proceeding against a dead person cannot be initiated or continued. It is submitted that there is no difference between Civil Death and Natural Death as has been held by this Court in the case of Bijay Kumar Pradhan Vrs. State of Jharkhand & others in W.P.S. No. 3956 of 2011 vide judgment dated 26.9.2013. It is further submitted that on the declaration of Civil Death of an employee only, the petitioner could have been entitled to make a legal claim for compassionate appointment. Therefore, application for such consideration being made within stipulated time period of 1 ½ years from the date of declaration i.e. date of Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2012/ 1.12.2012, the prayer for compassionate appointment is not barred by delay. She would also be entitled to any other admissible death cum retirement benefits, which has remained outstanding.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Central Coalfields Limited, on the basis of instruction contained in the counter-affidavit submits that the respondent-CCL has lawfully taken a recourse for initiating a proceeding on the continued absence of the employee since 5.6.2003 and after service of notice which remained un-responded , the ex-parte proceeding concluded in his termination for which second show cause notice was also issued along with the copy of the inquiry report which are annexed to the counter-affidavit. It is submitted that after the termination of the employee from service, this question is being raised after a