Civil death declared post-retirement precludes compassionate appointment as the "in harness" requirement remains unsatisfied.

The petitioner’s father, a Chowkidar in the Chhattisgarh Ground Water Board, went missing in 2001

The employee’s scheduled date of superannuation was July 31, 2017

A competent civil court declared the father’s civil death on January 4, 2019

On April 16, 2019, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the respondent-authority on December 26, 2020, on the grounds that the declaration of civil death occurred after the employee’s scheduled retirement date

The petitioner challenged this rejection via the present writ petition

1. Whether a dependent is eligible for compassionate appointment when the "civil death" of the government servant is declared after the scheduled date of superannuation

2. Whether the presumption of death under law automatically satisfies the "in harness" requirement for compassionate appointment

The court primarily relied on the Supreme Court of India's ruling in The Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation and Others v. Lalita and Others (2025 (8) Supreme 446), which followed the principles laid down in LIC v. Anuradha.

These precedents establish that a decree of civil death only recognizes the presumption of death after seven years of disappearance but does not fix a precise date or time of death; the burden to prove the specific timing remains with the claimant

Furthermore, the court applied the fundamental principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment, intended solely to provide immediate financial assistance to families to ameliorate sudden hardship caused by a servant dying "in harness"

The court reasoned that for a claim of compassionate appointment to succeed, the death of the government servant must occur while "in harness" (during active service)

In this case, although the father disappeared in 2001, his civil death was legally established only in 2019, nearly two years after his 2017 retirement date

The court, citing Lalita (supra), held that a declaration of civil death does not provide a retroactive date of death to the time of disappearance for the purpose of service benefits unless evidenced

Since the legal status of death was achieved post-superannuation, the "in harness" prerequisite was not met

Additionally, the court observed that the primary objective of the policy—providing urgent relief—was moot, as the family had already survived for over two decades since the initial disappearance in 2001

The court concluded that no grounds for interference existed as the family had survived for a long period, negating the need for immediate financial assistance

The petition was dismissed, and the order of the respondent-authority was upheld