JUDGMENT V. N. Khare, C.J. : With the consent of the parties we proceed to decide the appeal itself finally dispensing with filing of paper books and other formalities required to be observed under the Rules of this Court and treating the appeal as on day's list for hearing. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18th May, 1995 passed by a learned single Judge disposing of the writ application filed by the appellant. The appellant is the mother of one Subrata Kumar Dhar who was an employee in the Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal. It is alleged that the said Subrata Kumar Dhar has been missing since 1985. Under such circumstances, Smt. Mahamaya Dhar mother of Subrata Kumar Dhar submitted an application to the department for giving appointment to her second son-Ash is Kumar Dhar on compassionate ground. It is alleged that since no order was being passed on the said representation of Smt. Mahamaya Dhar, the appellant Mahamaya Dhar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing direction to the respondents to consider the said representation as well as to give employment to her second son Ashis Kumar Dhar on compassionate ground. The learned single Judge was of the view that the brother is not the dependent of Subrata Kumar Dhar who was on employment in Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal and as such Shri Ashis Kumar Dhar brother of Subrata Kumar Dhar was not entitled to any employment under the relevant scheme. The learned single Judge, however, was of the view that if a person is not heard for more than seven years, in terms of S. 108 of the Evidence Act he may be presumed to be dead and in that view of the matter the respondents may consider the case of mother of the missing employee for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. Aggrieved the appellant has come up in appeal before us. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the second son of the appellant is not dependent of Subrata Kumar Dhar-eldest son of the appellant, is erroneous inasmuch as the second son of the appellant was entitled to employment in Government Department under Circular No. 5120 (60) LW dated 17th October, 1977. The said Circular has been produced before us. The said Circular has been produced before us. Clause 2(i1) of the Circular is reproduced below: "(2) In the following categories of cases, however, the Employing Authorities will be competent without referring to the Employment Exchanges to give appointments- (i) ........................ (ii) to a son/daughter/near relation of a Government servant who dies in harness leaving his family in immediate need of assistance. Such compassionate appointments should be made provided the dependant possesses prescribed qualifications according to recruitment rules;" 5. On the strength of the above Circular, the learned counsel for the appellant urged that the second son of the appellant could be treated as near relation of the missing employee-Subrata Kumar Dhar and as such he was entitled to employment in the Government department on compassionate ground. 6. Learned counsel further relied on a Circular dated 16th April, 1988 the relevant portion of which are quoted below: "The provisions contained in paragraph 2(i1) of this department circular No. 5120(60) LW dated 17.10.77 and paragraph (1) of this department circular No. 196(60)-Emp dated 19.6.78 envisage inter alia that the employing authorities will be competent, without referring to the Employment Exchange, to give appointment to a son/daughter/near relation of a Government Servant who dies in harness or is disabled permanently or otherwise incapaciated rendering him unfit to continue in service any further, provided such dependent possesses prescribed qualifications according to the relevant recruitment rules. Since queries are received. from the different department on various points including the true import of the terms 'near relation' and 'dependents', as appearing in the provisions above, it has become necessary to clarify the intention of the Government behind the said provision. 2. It may be stated at the very outset that there is no precise definition of the terms 'near relation' and 'dependent' as appearing in the circulars above. Each case has to be decided on its individual merit. * * * * * * * . * . . * * * * *" 7. On the strength of the above two circulars learned counsel for the appellant attempted to argue that the second son of the appellant comes within the meaning of 'near relation' and as such entitled to employment in the Government department on compassionate ground. 8. After we have perused the above circulars, we find that the appellant cannot derive any benefit from those two circulars. 8. After we have perused the above circulars, we find that the appellant cannot derive any benefit from those two circulars. The circular dated 17.10.77 provides that employment would be given to a son/daughter/near relation of a Government servant who dies in harness leaving his family in immediate need of assistance. The words "immediate need of assistance" are decisive of the matter. The object of the circular is to provide employment to a dependent of a Government employee dying in harness who as a result of such death requires "immediate need of assistance". Here what we find is that Subrata Kumar Dhar is reported to be missing since 1985 and after lapse of 11 years it cannot be said that the family requires "immediate need of assistance." Further it may be noticed that the above two circulars specifically speak of actual death of a Government employee while in employment and not presumed death. The circular dated 16.6.78 also uses the words expressing "Government servant who dies in harness or is disabled permanently or otherwise incapaciated rendering him unfit to continue in service any further". This is clearly what the circular speaks of physical death and/or physical disability or incapacitation rendering him unfit to continue in service. 9. In view of above, we do not find that the appellant's second son is entitled to derive any benefit out of the circulars extracted above. 10. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. V. K. Gupta, J.: I agree. S.P. Appeal dismissed.