URMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interference declined by the learned Single Judge to interdict Annexure- P/3 order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the 4th Respondent, rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment, made the writ petitioners to approach this Court by way of this appeal.

(2.) Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, the learned counsel for the Appellant as well as Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the Respondents/State.

(3.) The sequence of events reveals that the husband of the 1st Appellant / father-in-law of the 2nd Appellant was working as an Assistant Teacher in the Government Educational Institution in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. It is the case of the Appellants that he was was found missing from 05.02.1996 and the missing report is stated to have been filed for the fist time on 10.12.2002. Admittedly, no case was filed by the widow or children of the person found missing before the competent Civil Court even after expiry of 07 years to presume civil death in terms of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. No such decree has been obtained so far and the factual position remains that the Employee has abandoned the employment for some or other reason. It is also an admitted position, that no claim was put-forth by the Appellants or the son/children of the person found missing, referring to their frustrating pecuniary circumstances (if any) and claiming for compassionate appointment. About 'two decades' after missing of the person concerned, the State of Chhattisgarh (after formation of the State getting carved out from the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh w.e.f. 01.11.2000) widened the scope of consideration for employment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme, whereby "daughter-in-law" of the deceased person was also brought within the purview of persons eligible for getting the benefit. It was thereafter, that an application dated 09.02.2017 was preferred by the 1st Appellant, claiming for compassionate appointment to be given to the 2nd Appellant the daughter-in-law; which was forwarded by the authorities concerned for further steps, in accordance with law. The 4th Respondent considered the matter and the claim was turned down as per Annexure-P/3 dated 25.11.2019, holding that it was preferred 'two decades' after the date of missing of the Employee and further that the 2nd Appellant daughter-in-law was not eligible to be considered for giving compassionate appointment at any time before such inclusion was made in the year 2016. This was sought to be challenged by filing the Writ Petition (S) No.225 of 2020, contending that, as per the law, if a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, he is liable to be presumed as dead and that the burden to prove it otherwise would be upon the person who contend that he is alive.