Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 03.08.2016 by which claim for appointment to her son has been rejected.
(2.) Briefly stated, petitioner's husband who was employed under M/s CCL was missing since 03.10.2002; a report in this regard was lodged on 06.11.2002. In Title Suit No.124 of 2009 a declaration on civil death of the petitioner's husband has been rendered on 13.07.2012. In this suit M/s CCL was impleaded as a party- defendant and it has contested the suit. The respondents have pleaded that by an order dated 20.09.2004 petitioner's husband was terminated from service on the ground of unauthorised absence from service. When compassionate appointment to the petitioner's son and post-retiral benefits including pension were not paid to the petitioner and her claim was rejected vide order dated 02.11.2013, she came to this Court in W.P.(S) No.330 of 2014 and by an order dated 03.08.2015 the order of termination of the petitioner's husband from service was quashed. Noticing orders passed in "Munni Devi Vs. Central Coalfields Limited & Ors." [W.P.(S) No.7438 of 2013] and "Bijay Kumar Pradhan Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors." [W.P.(S) No.3956 of 2011] wherein it has been held that dependant of a missing employee cannot be denied compassionate appointment, the respondents were directed to take a decision on the claim for compassionate appointment to son of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 03.08.2016 reflects that both sons of the petitioner were above 18 years of age.
(3.) Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that if it is proved that a man has not been heard of for 7 years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is on the person who affirms it. The petitioner has brought on record a declaration on the civil death of her husband by the civil court in Title Suit No.124 of 2009. Various High Courts including this High Court have held that there is no distinction between civil death and natural death of an employee for the purpose of compassionate appointment to dependant of a missing employee. Order passed by this Court in "Podin Devi Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors." [W.P.(S) No. 4946 of 2011] taking a similar view was challenged by the respondent-CCL before the Division Bench in LPA No.150 of 2014 and after dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal the matter was taken to the Supreme Court, however, the Special Leave Petition preferred by M/s CCL has been dismissed. The issue thus stands concluded that on the ground that there is no provision in NCWA for appointment of the dependant of a deceased employee, application for compassionate appointment of a missing employee cannot be rejected.;