The Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation vs Lalita & Ors.

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

Signature Not Verified i.e., the day on which he went missing. 1 Digitally signed by geeta ahuja 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.

7. In LIC Vs. Anuradha1, 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