Facts Of The Case:
The case involved a claim for compassionate appointment by Shubham, the son of Gulab Mahagu Bawankule, an employee of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. Gulab went missing on September 1, 2012. During the period of his disappearance, he was treated as being in continuous service and was duly retired on January 31, 2015. His family received all retiral benefits, amounting to approximately ₹6.49 lakh, and has since been receiving a monthly pension. Shubham sought compassionate appointment based on his father’s death. The civil court decreed on January 11, 2022, that Gulab was dead but did not specify a date of death. The High Court, in an order dated July 18, 2024, directed the appellants to issue an appointment order to Shubham by treating the date of his father’s disappearance (September 1, 2012) as the date of his death. The Municipal Corporation appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the legal presumption of death arises only after seven years from the date of disappearance, making the deemed date of civil death September 1, 2019, and that accepting retiral benefits precluded a claim for compassionate appointment.
Procedural History:
The legal proceedings originated when the respondent, Shubham, sought compassionate appointment from the Nagpur Municipal Corporation following the disappearance of his father, an employee, in 2012. After a civil court issued a decree in January 2022 declaring the father dead without specifying a date, Shubham filed Writ Petition No. 913 of 2024 before the High Court. The High Court, in its judgment dated July 18, 2024, allowed the petition and directed the Corporation to issue an appointment order by treating the date of disappearance as the date of death. Aggrieved by this direction, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation filed Civil Appeal No. 14786 of 2024 before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court heard the appeal and, in its judgment dated October 29, 2025, set aside the High Court’s order, thereby allowing the Corporation’s appeal and remitting the matter for fresh consideration on limited terms.
READ ALSO:Specific Performance Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Decree in Property Dispute
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made crucial observations on the legal principles governing civil death and compassionate appointment. It held that under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a missing person is presumed dead only upon the expiry of seven years from the date of disappearance, not from the date they went missing. The Court emphasized that a civil court’s decree declaring death merely recognizes this legal presumption and does not, in itself, fix an earlier date of death. It noted that the burden of proving a specific date of death lies with the claimant, and in this case, no such evidence was presented. Furthermore, the Court observed that since the employee was treated as being in service until his official retirement in 2015, and his family had accepted all retiral benefits and a pension, this was inconsistent with a claim for compassionate appointment, which is contingent upon death in harness. The Bench also found that the High Court erred by directly ordering appointment instead of directing the authorities to consider the case based on prescribed conditions.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated July 18, 2024. It held that the father of respondent No. 2 could only be deemed to have suffered a civil death on September 1, 2019, upon the expiry of seven years from his disappearance, and not on the date he went missing in 2012. Consequently, the claim for compassionate appointment was not legally tenable, especially since the family had accepted the employee’s retirement and all consequent retiral benefits. However, the Court left it open for the appellants to consider the case of respondent No. 2 for appointment to any suitable post independently, on a fresh basis, with possible age relaxation, provided such an appointment is otherwise permissible under the law. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Case Details:
Case Title: The Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation & Ors. Vs. Lalita & Ors. CITATION: 2025 INSC 1280 Appeal Number: Civil Appeal No. 14786 of 2024 Date of Judgement: October 29, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale