Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1280
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14786 OF 2024
THE COMMISSIONER, NAGPUR
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
LALITA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants
assailing the judgment and order dated
18.07.2024, passed by the High Court in Writ
Petition No. 913 of 2024. The High Court
directed the appellants to issue an
appointment order to respondent No.2,
Shubham(son) on a suitable post, by treating
the date of death of the father of respondent
No.2, Gulab Mahagu Bawankule as 01.09.2012
i.e., the day on which he went missing.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
geeta ahuja
1
Date: 2025.11.04
17:06:32 IST
Reason:
3. The submission of learned counsel for the
appellants is that the date on which the
father of respondent No.2 went missing i.e.
01.09.2012, cannot be treated as the date of
his death. In cases of civil death, a person
will be presumed to be dead only if his
whereabouts are not heard of for seven years
from the date the person went missing.
Therefore, the High Court manifestly erred in
treating the date on which the father went
missing as the date of his death. There is no
evidence on record to prove the date of his
death.
4. It is further submitted that the date of
civil death of father of the respondent No.2
would, in fact, be 01.09.2019, i.e., on the
expiry of seven years period from the date he
went missing. During the period he was
missing, he was treated to be in service and
he duly retired on 31.01.2015. The family was
extended all retiral benefits amounting to
Rs.6,49,000/-(Rupees six lakhs forty-nine
2
thousand only) and odd. Additionally, the
family is receiving monthly pension of
Rs.12,000/-(Rupees twelve thousand only).
Since, the family member(s) including
respondent no. 2 have accepted the retirement
of father and his retiral dues, it is not
open for respondent No.2 to claim
compassionate appointment.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent(s),in defence, contended that the
respondent No.2 could not have sought a
decree declaring the death of his father
prior to 2019, as the statutory period of
seven years had to first elapse. It is
therefore, submitted that the decree
declaring the death of his father passed by
the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division
Nagpur on 11.01.2022, would, in effect,
relate back to the date on which his father
went missing.
6. We have perused the decree of the Civil Court
dated 11.01.2022. It records that the father
3
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.
1
7. In LIC Vs. Anuradha , it has been laid down 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 burden to prove the date or
time of the death lies upon the person who
makes such an assertion of death. It has been
further clarified in the aforesaid case that
the decree of declaration of civil death only
recognizes the fact that the person is
presumed to be dead after expiry of seven
years of disappearance, without fixing any
1 (2004) 10 SCC 131
4
precise date or time of death.
8. In the instant case, the respondent No. 2 has
not asserted any specific date or time of the
death of his father, nor has he adduced any
evidence in this regard. Therefore, the date
or time of the death of the father of the
respondent No.2 remains uncertain. Section
108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states
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.
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.
9. 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. It is pertinent to
note that despite having gone missing, he was
5
treated to be in continuous service and he
duly retired on 31.01.2015. The family
members were paid all the retiral dues and
have also been receiving monthly pension. In
these circumstances, when the respondent No.2
has accepted that his father had retired, he
cannot claim compassionate appointment.
10. This apart, the High Court manifestly erred
in directing the appellants to straight away
grant compassionate appointment to
respondent No.2, instead of directing them to
consider his case for compassionate
appointment and thereafter to extend the
appointment, upon satisfaction of prescribed
conditions.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, we are of the opinion that the
impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2024
passed by the High Court cannot be sustained
in law. Accordingly, the impugned judgment
and order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the High
Court is hereby set aside. However, we leave
6
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.
12. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
…………………………………………………...J.
[PANKAJ MITHAL]
…………………………………………………...J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 29, 2025.
SD
7
ITEM NO.117 COURT NO.7 SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14786/2024
THE COMMISSIONER,
NAGPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
LALITA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
(IA No. 78417/2025 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION)
Date : 29-10-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Appellant(s) Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Chitra Parande, Adv.
Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR
Mr. Nilakanta Nayak, Adv.
Mr. Amit Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Kaushal Narayan Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The appeal stands allowed in terms of the
signed non-reportable judgment which is placed on
the file.
8
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(SNEHA DAS) (NIDHI MATHUR)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
9
2025 INSC 1280
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14786 OF 2024
THE COMMISSIONER, NAGPUR
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
LALITA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants
assailing the judgment and order dated
18.07.2024, passed by the High Court in Writ
Petition No. 913 of 2024. The High Court
directed the appellants to issue an
appointment order to respondent No.2,
Shubham(son) on a suitable post, by treating
the date of death of the father of respondent
No.2, Gulab Mahagu Bawankule as 01.09.2012
i.e., the day on which he went missing.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
geeta ahuja
1
Date: 2025.11.04
17:06:32 IST
Reason:
3. The submission of learned counsel for the
appellants is that the date on which the
father of respondent No.2 went missing i.e.
01.09.2012, cannot be treated as the date of
his death. In cases of civil death, a person
will be presumed to be dead only if his
whereabouts are not heard of for seven years
from the date the person went missing.
Therefore, the High Court manifestly erred in
treating the date on which the father went
missing as the date of his death. There is no
evidence on record to prove the date of his
death.
4. It is further submitted that the date of
civil death of father of the respondent No.2
would, in fact, be 01.09.2019, i.e., on the
expiry of seven years period from the date he
went missing. During the period he was
missing, he was treated to be in service and
he duly retired on 31.01.2015. The family was
extended all retiral benefits amounting to
Rs.6,49,000/-(Rupees six lakhs forty-nine
2
thousand only) and odd. Additionally, the
family is receiving monthly pension of
Rs.12,000/-(Rupees twelve thousand only).
Since, the family member(s) including
respondent no. 2 have accepted the retirement
of father and his retiral dues, it is not
open for respondent No.2 to claim
compassionate appointment.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent(s),in defence, contended that the
respondent No.2 could not have sought a
decree declaring the death of his father
prior to 2019, as the statutory period of
seven years had to first elapse. It is
therefore, submitted that the decree
declaring the death of his father passed by
the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division
Nagpur on 11.01.2022, would, in effect,
relate back to the date on which his father
went missing.
6. We have perused the decree of the Civil Court
dated 11.01.2022. It records that the father
3
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.
1
7. In LIC Vs. Anuradha , it has been laid down 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 burden to prove the date or
time of the death lies upon the person who
makes such an assertion of death. It has been
further clarified in the aforesaid case that
the decree of declaration of civil death only
recognizes the fact that the person is
presumed to be dead after expiry of seven
years of disappearance, without fixing any
1 (2004) 10 SCC 131
4
precise date or time of death.
8. In the instant case, the respondent No. 2 has
not asserted any specific date or time of the
death of his father, nor has he adduced any
evidence in this regard. Therefore, the date
or time of the death of the father of the
respondent No.2 remains uncertain. Section
108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states
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.
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.
9. 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. It is pertinent to
note that despite having gone missing, he was
5
treated to be in continuous service and he
duly retired on 31.01.2015. The family
members were paid all the retiral dues and
have also been receiving monthly pension. In
these circumstances, when the respondent No.2
has accepted that his father had retired, he
cannot claim compassionate appointment.
10. This apart, the High Court manifestly erred
in directing the appellants to straight away
grant compassionate appointment to
respondent No.2, instead of directing them to
consider his case for compassionate
appointment and thereafter to extend the
appointment, upon satisfaction of prescribed
conditions.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, we are of the opinion that the
impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2024
passed by the High Court cannot be sustained
in law. Accordingly, the impugned judgment
and order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the High
Court is hereby set aside. However, we leave
6
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.
12. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
…………………………………………………...J.
[PANKAJ MITHAL]
…………………………………………………...J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 29, 2025.
SD
7
ITEM NO.117 COURT NO.7 SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14786/2024
THE COMMISSIONER,
NAGPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
LALITA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
(IA No. 78417/2025 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION)
Date : 29-10-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Appellant(s) Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Chitra Parande, Adv.
Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR
Mr. Nilakanta Nayak, Adv.
Mr. Amit Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Kaushal Narayan Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The appeal stands allowed in terms of the
signed non-reportable judgment which is placed on
the file.
8
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(SNEHA DAS) (NIDHI MATHUR)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
9