No Compassionate Appointment Claim Over Missing Employee Who Retired Before 7-Year Period For Presumption Of Death: Supreme Court

Observing that the presumption of death arises only after seven years from the date a person goes missing, the Supreme Court recently set aside an order of the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench which had directed the Municipal Corporation to grant compassionate appointment to the son of a missing employee who had retired from service before completion of the seven-year period required to presume civil death.

The Court held that since the employee's family had already accepted retirement and pensionary benefits, they could not subsequently claim compassionate appointment.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B Varale heard the case, which involved one Gulab Mahagu Bawankule, a Nagpur Municipal Corporation employee who went missing on September 1, 2012 but was deemed in service until his retirement on January 31, 2015. His family received ₹6.49 lakh in retiral benefits and a ₹12,000-monthly pension. In 2022, a civil court declared him dead without specifying the date. His son then sought compassionate appointment, which the High Court granted, treating his father as dead from the date of disappearance(2012).

Challenging the High Court's decision, the civil body moved to the Supreme Court.

Allowing the civil body's appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Mithal said that a grant of compassionate appointment is not an inherent right of an employee's dependents but is a measure to alleviate the sudden financial distress of a family when an employee dies in harness (while in service). Since, the Respondent no.2's father i.e., missing employee retired from the service before the expiry of seven years, he would be deemed to have served until his normal retirement date i.e., January 31, 2015.

Therefore, by accepting the retiral dues and pension, the family itself acknowledged that the employee had retired from service. It cannot now claim the benefit of a scheme meant for death in harness, the court said.

“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. 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.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment granting compassionate appointment to the Respondent No.2, however, it left “open to the appellants (Municipal Corporation) 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.”

The appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: THE COMMISSIONER, NAGPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. VERSUS LALITA & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1065

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

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.