Rajan Roy, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The father of the petitioner is said to have disappeared more than seven years ago, therefore, he claims compassionate appointment presuming his civil death in terms of Section 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act.

3. The question as to whether in such cases declaration is required by the Civil Court or not was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramakant Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2005 (23) LCD 169 wherein it was held that even if the suit had not been filed, a presumption could be drawn, if the conditions imperative for raising the presumption were satisfied. Once a presumption of civil death is raised on the satisfaction of the conditions given in Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof that he is alive, is then shifted to the person who affirms that the person reported missing was seen and is alive.

4. Similar view has been taken by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of District Judge Vs. Saurabh Kumar, (Special Appeal No. 767 of 2012).

5. In the present case, father of the petitioner is said to have disappeared while in service on