Supreme Court: No Compassionate Appointment for Missing Employee Retired Before 7-Year Death Presumption

Case Title: Nandkumar @ Nandu Manilal Mudaliar Versus State of Gujarat.

Introduction

In a crucial ruling upholding the tenets of compassionate appointments, the Supreme Court of India determined that civil death presumption occurs only after seven years have passed since an individual went missing and that the dependents of such an employee cannot seek compassionate appointment if the employee had already been regarded as retired and pension benefits were accepted prior to the expiry of that timeframe.

The ruling resulted from an appeal lodged by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC), contesting the Bombay High Court's (Nagpur Bench) decision that mandated the civic body to grant a compassionate appointment to the son of a missing worker, Gulab Mahagu Bawankule, considering him deceased from the time of his vanishing.

A Bench consisting of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale issued the ruling, elucidating the legal context related to the presumption of death and compassionate appointment in civil service.

Background of the Case

The situation stemmed from the vanishing of Gulab Mahagu Bawankule, a worker for the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, who was last seen on September 1, 2012. Even in his absence, the civic organization persisted in regarding him as being on duty until his planned retirement date of January 31, 2015.

After his retirement, the family was given ₹6.49 lakh in retirement benefits along with a monthly pension of ₹12,000, recognizing his retirement. Years later, in 2022, a civil court ruled him “dead” but did not indicate the precise date of death. Following that declaration, his son applied for a compassionate job under the municipal corporation’s employment programme for dependents of employees who pass away during their service.

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, upon accepting his petition, instructed the Corporation to provide a compassionate appointment, arguing that the employee ought to be regarded as deceased from the disappearance date in 2012.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

Disregarding the High Court's directive, the Supreme Court explained that the assumption of civil death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 occurs solely after seven years from the last known date of a person's existence. Until that time elapses, the person is legally assumed to be alive.

"The assumption of death occurs only after seven years from the date a person disappears." “The Court noted that any death declaration made prior to that period is premature and inconsistent with established law.”

The Bench highlighted that because Bawankule was regarded as being in service until January 2015 and his family had accepted retirement benefits and a pension, they effectively recognized that he retired normally and was not deemed to have died in service.

The Court noted:

"It is important to mention that even though he went missing, he was considered to be in ongoing service, and he officially retired on 31.01.2015." The family received all retirement benefits and has been getting a monthly pension as well. Under these conditions, as respondent No. 2 has acknowledged his father's retirement, he is not entitled to a compassionate appointment.

Compassionate Appointment: Not a Right, But a Welfare Measure

The Supreme Court emphasized that compassionate appointments are not a guaranteed or transferable right for the dependents of an employee. It serves as an exception to the typical norm of public employment, designed exclusively to ease sudden financial hardship resulting from the unexpected passing of a government worker while on duty.

“Compassionate appointment serves as a form of relief, rather than a right,” the Bench remarked. “It cannot be asserted as a right once the employee has retired or after the family has received pension and retirement payments.”

Given that the family of the deceased employee had accepted all retirement benefits and continued to receive pension payments, the Court determined that they could not claim a scheme designated for death in harness, as there was no aspect of “sudden financial hardship” following a natural retirement.

Legal Principles Reaffirmed

The ruling strengthens two widely recognized principles in service law:

Presumption of Death according to Section 108 of the Evidence Act: A person may be officially assumed dead only after seven years have passed without any explanation for their absence. Any statement or claim for benefits made prior to that time lacks legal validity.

Compassionate Appointment Scope: The benefit is applicable exclusively when a current employee passes away unexpectedly, leaving the family in financial distress. Acceptance of retirement and pension benefits indicate recognition that the employee fulfilled their service, thereby excluding the family from these programmes.

Relief and Clarification

In rejecting the request for a compassionate appointment, the Court demonstrated humanitarian concern by permitting the municipal body to seek alternative avenues for assistance. It mentioned:

“The appellants (Municipal Corporation) may evaluate respondent No. 2’s application for any appropriate position within their authority, separate from the compassionate appointment claim, possibly allowing age relaxation if it is legally permissible.”

Thus, the Supreme Court permitted the appeal, overturning the High Court’s decision that approved compassionate appointment.

Way forward

From a legal perspective, this decision maintains a delicate equilibrium between compassion for grieving families and compliance with legal standards. By confirming that compassionate appointment cannot be broadened beyond its intended limits, the Supreme Court has guaranteed that administrative compassion does not surpass statutory discipline.

The ruling acts as a reminder that although the law should be compassionate, it cannot operate beyond the limits of reason and established cases. In this scenario, the acceptance of retirement benefits indicated a conclusive end to service, removing the basis for a death-in-service benefit.

This choice, consequently, strengthens the rule of law and guarantees that public employment programmes stay equitable, uniform, and legally justifiable, instead of transforming into indefinite claims based on compassion rather than legal rights.

Empower Your Legal Practice with AI – Join Our Free Webinar!

Are you a legal professional looking to boost your efficiency and stay ahead in a competitive field? Discover the power of Lawttorney.AI – the cutting-edge tool designed to streamline legal research, automate tasks, and enhance productivity.

👉 Don't miss out! Reserve your spot in our FREE webinar and experience the future of legal practice today. Register Now