The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment dated October 29, 2025, has set aside an order of the High Court that directed the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to grant a compassionate appointment. The apex court held that under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a person missing for seven years is presumed dead only after the expiry of that period, not on the date they first went missing, unless a specific date of death is proven with evidence.
The bench, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, allowed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The central legal issue was whether a compassionate appointment could be claimed based on a “civil death” when the employee had already retired during the seven-year period he was missing, and the family had accepted all retiral benefits.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a judgment and order dated 18.07.2024, passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 913 of 2024. The High Court had directed the appellants (Nagpur Municipal Corporation) to issue an appointment order to Respondent No. 2, Shubham, on a suitable post.
This direction was based on treating the date of death of Shubham’s father, Gulab Mahagu Bawankule (an employee of the corporation), as 01.09.2012, which was the day he went missing. The Corporation assailed this High Court order before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the Appellants (Nagpur Municipal Corporation) submitted that the High Court had manifestly erred.
- They argued that the date on which the father went missing (01.09.2012) cannot be treated as his date of death.
- Citing the law on civil death, they contended that a person is presumed dead only if their whereabouts are unheard of for seven years. Therefore, the actual date of civil death would be 01.09.2019, i.e., on the expiry of the seven-year period.
- The appellants highlighted that during the period he was missing, the employee was treated as being in service and duly retired on 31.01.2015.
- Following his retirement, the family was extended all retiral benefits amounting to Rs. 6,49,000/- and is currently receiving a monthly pension of Rs. 12,000/-.
- The Corporation argued that since the family, including Respondent No. 2, had accepted the retirement and the associated dues, it was not open for the son to now claim compassionate appointment.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent(s) (the son) contended that they could not have sought a decree declaring the death prior to 2019, as the statutory seven-year period had to elapse first.
- They submitted that the decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, on 11.01.2022, which declared the father dead, should “relate back” to the date on which he went missing (01.09.2012).
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court bench first perused the civil court’s decree dated 11.01.2022. The Court observed, “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.”
The bench then referred to the precedent set in LIC VS. Anuradha ((2004) 10 SCC 131), laying down that 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 Court reiterated that the “burden to prove the date or time of the death lies upon the person who makes such an assertion of death.” A decree of civil death, the judgment noted, merely recognizes the presumption of death after seven years “without fixing any precise date or time of death.”
Applying this law, the Supreme Court found that Respondent No. 2 had not asserted any specific date of his father’s death, nor had he adduced any evidence to prove it. “Therefore,” the Court held, “the date or time of the death of the father of the respondent No.2 remains uncertain.”
The Court turned to Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, stating 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.” The bench concluded: “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.”
Based on this, the Court determined the date of civil death: “Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the father of the respondent No.2 would be deemed to have died a civil death upon the expiry of seven years from the date he went missing i.e., 01.09.2019.”
The Court then noted the crucial fact that the employee had retired on 31.01.2015, before this deemed date of death. The bench concluded, “It is pertinent to note that despite having gone missing, he was treated to be in continuous service and he duly retired on 31.01.2015… In these circumstances, when the respondent No.2 has accepted that his father had retired, he cannot claim compassionate appointment.”
Additionally, the Supreme Court held that the High Court “manifestly erred in directing the appellants to straight away grant compassionate appointment… instead of directing them to consider his case for compassionate appointment.”
The Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2024, passed by the High Court, “cannot be sustained in law.”
Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the High Court’s order. However, the bench left it open “to the appellants to consider the case of the respondent No.2 for appointment for any suitable post within its jurisdiction, independent of claim for compassionate appointment, if necessary by granting age relaxation, provided the same is otherwise permissible in law.”
