Introduction
The Telangana High Court has held that a missing employee cannot automatically be treated as a case of “death in harness” merely because seven years have passed, giving rise to a presumption of death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Court ruled that where a compassionate appointment scheme creates a separate category for missing employees, the conditions contained in that scheme must be strictly followed.
Legal Issue
The main issue before the Court was whether the presumption of death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act could be invoked to treat a missing employee as having died in harness and thereby bypass the specific eligibility conditions prescribed under the compassionate appointment scheme for missing employees.
Background
The case concerned S. Sanjeev, whose father S. Sayanna was employed as a lineman under TSNPDCL and went missing on March 7, 2012 while in service. A police complaint was lodged and, after investigation, an untraceable certificate was issued.
The appellant sought compassionate appointment claiming that the family had been left without financial support. However, the Corporation rejected the request on the ground that the employee had less than seven years of service remaining before retirement when he went missing.
According to the scheme applicable to missing employees, compassionate appointment could be granted only if the missing employee had at least seven years of remaining service at the time of disappearance.
The learned Single Judge upheld the rejection, following which the appellant approached the Division Bench.
Court’s Decision
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin dismissed the appeal and upheld the rejection of compassionate appointment.
The Court observed that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an exception to the normal rules governing public employment and therefore the scheme must be strictly interpreted.
It noted that the scheme itself consciously created a distinct category for “missing employees” and imposed separate conditions, including a seven-year waiting period and an exclusion clause where the employee had less than seven years of service remaining.
The Court held that the statutory presumption of death under Section 108 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to override or bypass the explicit terms of the scheme.
The Bench further explained that accepting the appellant’s argument would make the separate framework for missing employees meaningless. It also pointed out that if every disappearance after seven years were automatically treated as death in harness, the exclusion clause in the scheme would become redundant.
The Court also rejected allegations that the rejection order was mechanical, observing that the authorities had carefully examined the employee’s date of birth, retirement date and remaining service period before rejecting the claim.
Conclusion
The Telangana High Court reaffirmed that compassionate appointment schemes must be strictly construed according to their terms. The Court clarified that the legal presumption of death after seven years under Section 108 of the Evidence Act cannot be mechanically imported into service matters where the scheme itself separately governs cases of missing employees.
Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that the appellant remained free to pursue any other legal remedies for pensionary or terminal benefits.
Case Name
S. Sanjeev v. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, TSNPDCL, OP, Nirmal District, Telangana State & Ors.
