The Court held that the presumption of death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be used to bypass a compassionate appointment scheme that excludes missing employees who had less than seven years of service left.
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by S. Sanjeev seeking compassionate appointment in place of his missing father, S. Sayanna, who worked as a Lineman in the respondent-Corporation.
The Court held that the claim was barred under the compassionate appointment scheme applicable to missing employees.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin delivered the judgment on March 5, 2026 in S. Sanjeev v. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, TSNPDCL.
Appeal Challenged Single Judge Order
The appellant filed the writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the Single Judge’s order dated December 5, 2025 in W.P. No. 778 of 2024.
The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection order dated July 17, 2020.
The appellant had sought compassionate appointment after the disappearance of his father.
Father Went Missing During Service
S. Sayanna worked as a Lineman in the Bhainsa Division under the respondent-Corporation.
He went missing on March 7, 2012 while still in service. The family lodged a police complaint, but authorities could not trace him despite investigation.
Later, the police issued an untraceable certificate.
The appellant stated that he had completed Intermediate education and that the family lost its only source of livelihood after the employee disappeared.
Corporation Rejected Request
The Divisional Engineer, Operation Division, Bhainsa, rejected the request for compassionate appointment through proceedings dated July 17, 2020.
The rejection order referred to the scheme governing compassionate appointments in cases involving missing employees.
Authorities noted that S. Sayanna was born on June 19, 1958 and would have retired on June 30, 2016.
On the date of disappearance, he had only 4 years, 3 months, and 23 days of service remaining.
Since the scheme required at least seven years of remaining service, authorities rejected the claim.
Appellant Sought Liberal Interpretation
Counsel for the appellant argued that the compassionate appointment scheme aimed to provide immediate relief to distressed families.
According to the appellant, the Single Judge adopted an overly rigid interpretation of the exclusion clause.
The appellant further argued that the family suffered severe financial hardship and had no other earning member.
Appellant Relied On Section 108 Of Evidence Act
The appellant also relied on Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
He argued that a presumption of death arises if a person remains unheard of for seven years.
Since his father had remained untraceable since March 7, 2012, the appellant argued that the case should be treated as one involving death in harness.
The appellant further contended that the rejection order was mechanical and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Corporation Opposed Appeal
Counsel for the respondent-Corporation argued that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right.
The respondents submitted that the scheme strictly governs such appointments.
According to the Corporation, the scheme clearly excludes cases where the missing employee had less than seven years of service left before retirement.
The respondents also argued that Section 108 of the Evidence Act could not convert a missing employee case into one of death in harness.
Court Examined Scheme
The Court noted that the scheme traces its origin to G.O.Ms.No.687 dated October 3, 1977 issued by the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh.
Under the scheme, one dependent family member of a deceased employee may receive compassionate appointment if the family has no other earning member.
The scheme also covers missing employees whose whereabouts remain unknown for more than seven years.
However, applicants must satisfy certain conditions. These include:
- lodging an FIR,
- obtaining police certification that the employee remains untraceable,
- satisfying the competent authority that the case is genuine, and
- filing the application within one year after completion of seven years from the FIR date.
Importantly, the scheme excludes cases where the employee had less than seven years of service left on the date of the FIR.
Compassionate Appointment Not A Right
The Bench reiterated that compassionate appointment is only an exception to the constitutional principle of equal opportunity in public employment.
The Court held that authorities can grant such appointments only in strict compliance with the governing scheme.
The Bench observed that courts cannot dilute scheme conditions on grounds of sympathy or equity.
For this principle, the Court relied on Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana.
Exclusion Clause Clearly Applied
Applying the scheme to the facts, the Court held that the appellant’s case clearly fell within the exclusion clause.
The Bench observed that S. Sayanna had less than seven years of service remaining when he went missing.
Therefore, the scheme expressly barred compassionate appointment.
The Court held that the exclusion clause was clear and unambiguous.
Court Refuses To Rewrite Scheme
The Court rejected the plea for a liberal interpretation.
According to the Bench, accepting the argument would effectively amount to rewriting the scheme.
For this proposition, the Court relied on Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal.
The Court reiterated that courts cannot rewrite statutory schemes.
Section 108 Cannot Override Scheme
The Court also rejected the appellant’s reliance on Section 108 of the Evidence Act.
The Bench held that the presumption of death under Section 108 cannot override the specific conditions contained in the compassionate appointment scheme.
The Court observed that the scheme separately treats missing employees and deceased employees.
According to the Bench, treating every disappearance case as death in harness would render the separate provisions relating to missing employees meaningless.
Rejection Order Was Not Mechanical
The Court further rejected the argument that the rejection order lacked proper reasoning.
The Bench noted that authorities considered:
- the employee’s date of birth,
- the superannuation date,
- the balance period of service, and
- the relevant scheme provisions.
Therefore, the Court held that authorities had applied the scheme properly to the facts of the case.
No Violation Of Articles 14 And 16
The Court also rejected the challenge under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The appellant failed to show that similarly placed persons had received compassionate appointment.
The Bench held that the distinction between employees with more than seven years of service and those with less than seven years had a rational basis.
The Court observed that employees with shorter remaining service periods would soon become eligible for pension and other retiral benefits.
Appeal Dismissed
Finally, the Telangana High Court upheld the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the writ appeal.
However, the Court clarified that the appellant could still pursue remedies available under law for claiming terminal benefits, pension, or other dues payable to his father.
The Court closed all pending miscellaneous petitions and imposed no costs.
