Introduction

The case of Amardeep Kashyap v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Msme Lko. And 3 Others adjudicated by the Allahabad High Court on October 24, 2024, centers on the appellant's quest for a compassionate appointment following the presumed death of his father, Sri Ghanshyam Kashyap. The key issues involve the legal interpretation of civil death under Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and its impact on eligibility for compassionate appointments within governmental institutions.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellant, Amardeep Kashyap, sought a compassionate appointment following the disappearance and subsequent presumed death of his father, Sri Ghanshyam Kashyap. Sri Ghanshyam, employed as a peon at Jila Udyog Kendra, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh, went missing on June 25, 2012. Despite efforts, he remained missing, and a civil death declaration was obtained in 2022 after seven years. Amardeep's application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner in 2019 and later orders by the Single Judge in Writ A No.2731 of 2024 and Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No.117 of 2024 upheld this rejection. The High Court, after thorough analysis, dismissed the appellant's Special Appeal, affirming the rejection of his compassionate appointment claim.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references pivotal cases that interpret Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act:

• L.I.C. of India Vs. Anuradha (2004): Clarified that the presumption of death under Section 108 arises only when the question of death is raised in a legal forum, emphasizing that no specific date of death is presumed.
• Ram Singh Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad (1964): Reinforced that Section 108 does not allow for presumption of death prior to seven years and stressed the necessity of evidence for the specific date or time of death.
• Smt. Narbada and another Vs. Ram Dayal (1968): Highlighted that the presumption of death is triggered only when the dispute is raised in court, not retrospectively.
• Subhash Ramchandra Wadekar Vs. Union of India (1993): Emphasized that while Section 108 allows for presumption of death after seven years, it does not specify a date, leaving room for courts to make suitable presumptions based on circumstances.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning centered on interpreting the presumption of death under Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was determined that:

• Section 107 shifts the burden of proving death onto the party affirming it, applicable when a person has been known to be alive within the last thirty years.
• Section 108 introduces an exception where, if a person has not been heard of for seven years, the burden shifts to prove that the person is still alive.
• The presumption of death under Section 108 does not specify a date or time of death, merely that the person is presumed dead after seven years of being unheard of.
• In the present case, since the civil death was declared in 2022 (ten years after the disappearance), and no specific date of death could be substantiated, the appellant could not claim compassionate appointment.
• The issuance and subsequent cancellation of an appointment letter in 2022 did not confer any rights to the appellant for a compassionate appointment, as no specific death was proven within the superannuation period.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent requirements for claiming civil death and, by extension, compassionate appointments. It clarifies that:

• The presumption of death is strictly tied to the lapse of seven years without conclusive evidence, without allowing retrospective presumptions.
• Applicants for compassionate appointments must provide concrete evidence regarding the date and circumstances of death within the stipulated period.
• Agencies must adhere to judicial interpretations of Sections 107 and 108 when rejecting or approving compassionate appointments.
• Future cases will likely follow this precedent, thereby setting a higher evidential threshold for claims based on presumed death.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Civil Death

Civil death refers to a legal declaration that a person is presumed dead without a body or evidence of death, typically after seven years of disappearance.

Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Section 107: Places the burden of proving that a person is dead on the party asserting death if it's established that the person was known to be alive within the last thirty years.
• Section 108: Creates an exception where if a person hasn't been heard from for seven years, the burden shifts to prove that the person is still alive, not dead.

Compassionate Appointment

A compassionate appointment is a preferential recruitment concession provided to the family members of deceased government employees, ensuring their financial stability in the absence of the primary breadwinner.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court's judgment in Amardeep Kashyap v. State Of U.P. underscores the critical importance of adhering to legal provisions governing civil death and the criteria for compassionate appointments. By meticulously analyzing Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court has clarified that without concrete evidence specifying the date and circumstances of death within the prescribed period, claims for compassionate appointments cannot be sustained. This decision sets a significant precedent, emphasizing the necessity for clear and timely legal declarations of death to facilitate rightful claims for compassionate benefits.