Legal Review and Analysis of The Commissioner Nagpur Municipal Corporation & Ors vs Lalita & Ors 2025 INSC 1280

In-Short

Case: Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation vs. Lalita & Ors. (2025 INSC 1280)
Short Caption: The Supreme Court ruled that for a missing person, the legal presumption of death under Section 108 of the Evidence Act arises only after seven years, not from the date of disappearance, and accepting retiral benefits bars a claim for compassionate appointment.

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: The Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation & Ors. vs. Lalita & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1280 (Civil Appeal No. 14786 of 2024)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment primarily interprets and applies the following legal provisions:

• Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the presumption of "civil death." It states that a person is presumed to be dead if they have not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard from them.

• The Law on Compassionate Appointment: The judgment references the principles governing compassionate appointment, which is an exception to the general rule of public employment, intended to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee against sudden financial crisis.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Nature of Proceedings: A Civil Appeal filed by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation challenging an order of the High Court.

• Core Parties:
  Appellants: The Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation (the employer).
  Respondents: Lalita (the wife of the missing employee) and Shubham (their son, the claimant for compassionate appointment).

• Subject Matter: The legal validity of a compassionate appointment granted based on the date of a "civil death" of an employee who went missing.

4. Core Principle and In-Depth Analysis of the Judgment

The Central Legal Issue

The core issue before the Supreme Court was: Can the date on which a person goes missing be treated as the actual date of their death for the purpose of granting compassionate appointment to a dependent, or does the legal presumption of death under Section 108 of the Evidence Act take effect only after the expiry of seven years?

Judicial Analysis and Reasoning

A. The Factual Contradiction and the High Court's Error

The employee, Gulab Mahagu Bawankule, went missing on September 1, 2012. The Municipal Corporation continued to treat him as in service until his scheduled retirement date of January 31, 2015. His family received all retiral benefits and a monthly pension. Subsequently, the son, Shubham, sought compassionate appointment. The High Court directed the Corporation to issue an appointment order by treating the date of disappearance (September 1, 2012) as the date of death.

The Supreme Court identified a fundamental flaw in this approach. It held that by accepting and retaining the retiral benefits and pension, the family had acquiesced to the fact that the employee had retired and was not deemed to have died in harness. A claim for compassionate appointment, which is meant for families of employees who die while in service, is incompatible with the acceptance of retirement benefits.

B. The Correct Interpretation of "Civil Death" under Section 108, Evidence Act

This is the legal cornerstone of the judgment. The Supreme Court meticulously clarified the law on presuming death:

• The Presumption is Prospective, Not Retroactive: The Court emphatically ruled that the presumption of death under Section 108 arises only upon the expiry of seven years from the date of disappearance. A person cannot be declared dead retroactively from the date they went missing.

• Burden of Proof for Specific Date of Death: Relying on its precedent in LIC Vs. Anuradha (2004) 10 SCC 131, the Court held that the burden of proving a specific date of death lies on the person who asserts it. In this case, the respondent (Shubham) had not adduced any direct or circumstantial evidence to prove that his father died on September 1, 2012. The civil court's decree declaring the death was silent on the date of death, merely recognizing the presumption after seven years had elapsed.

• The Deemed Date of Death: Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the employee could only be "deemed to have died a civil death" upon the expiry of seven years from his disappearance, i.e., on September 1, 2019. Since he had already "retired" in 2015, the question of granting a compassionate appointment for a death that was legally presumed to have occurred in 2019 did not arise.

C. Rectifying the High Court's Procedural Overreach

The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court erred procedurally by directly directing the issuance of an appointment order. The correct course would have been to direct the authorities to consider the application for compassionate appointment, allowing them to apply their policy and satisfy the prescribed conditions.

5. Final Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The claim for compassionate appointment was thus rejected.

However, in a balancing act, the Court left it open for the appellants to consider the case of respondent No. 2 (Shubham) for appointment to any suitable post, independent of the claim for compassionate appointment, and if necessary, by granting age relaxation, provided such a course is otherwise permissible under the law.

6. MCQs Based on the Judgment

Question 1: As per the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation vs. Lalita & Ors., when is a person presumed to be dead under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
(a) From the date they are reported missing.
(b) Only after a court issues a decree of declaration of death.
(c) Upon the expiry of seven years from the date they were last heard of.
(d) When the family accepts the retiral benefits.

Question 2: In the aforementioned case, why did the Supreme Court reject the claim for compassionate appointment?
(a) Because the respondent was not qualified for the post.
(b) Because the employee had resigned from his post before disappearing.
(c) Because the family had accepted the employee's retiral benefits and pension, acknowledging his retirement, and the legal death was presumed years after his service ended.
(d) Because there was no proof that the employee had actually died.