D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 23rd July, 2014 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2176 of 2014, whereby the petition preferred by this appellant (original petitioner) was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Factual Matrix The appellant claims that her husband has been missing from 27th August, 1997 while he was in service of the respondents and a complaint to that effect was also lodged on 17th August, 1999 before the police. It is also alleged by this appellant that under Section 108 of the Indian - Evidence Act, 1872, presumption can be drawn that her husband has expired and hence, compassionate appointment may be given to her son. It is further alleged that the State has paid the retiral dues of her husband, like G.P.F, Group Insurance etc., but the compassionate appointment was denied by the respondent State vide order dated 22nd June, 2009, hence, writ petition was preferred in the year 2014 claiming Compassionate Appointment. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellant
(3.) Counsel appearing for the appellant (original petitioner) submitted that the husband of this appellant was missing from 27th August, 1997. Complaint to that effect has also been lodged before the police on 17th August, 1999 and the police was unable to trace out the husband of this appellant. A period of more than seven years has lapsed and therefore, under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a presumption should be raised that her husband has expired and hence, her elder son should be given appointment. This aspect of the matter was not appreciated properly by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(S) No.2176 of 2014 vide order dated 23rd July, 2014.;