Rakesh Tiwari, J.;- Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Constable no. 24478 is the husband of petitioner Smt. Usha Singh who was posted in 20th Vahini P.A.C. Azamgarh. He was suspended for abusing and committing misconduct with Sri Radhy Shyam and his wife. A charge sheet dated 10.04.1996 was issued to him for the above misconduct. In the enquiry, oral statement of the petitioner's husband was recorded on 6.06.1996 by the Enquiry Officer wherein the workman denied the allegations made against him by the complainant Sri Radhey Shyam etc. Thereafter, on the same day the petitioner's husband went missing from 20th Battalion P.S.C. Azamgarh. In paragraph 11of the writ petition, it has been averred that " after 06.06.1996 suddenly the petitioner's husband has eloped and not return back till today." Nothing appears to have been done by the petitioner for about a year. 3. Thereafter by letter dated 18.06.1997 petitioner informed the Head Quarter of the Provincial Armed Constable at Lucknow about disappearance of her husband. Pursuant thereto respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 03.07.1997 directed the commandant 20th Battalion, Vahini, P.A.C. Azamgarh to take appropriate action in the matter. Consequently a letter dated 09.07.1997 was issued from the office of Commandant 20th Vahini P.S.C. Azamgarh, respondent no. 4 to the petitioner for presenting herself for recording of her statement within 7 days about disappearance of her husband. A news item was also got published by the petitioner in daily newspapers Yashobhumi, Aaj and by the respondents in Dainik Jagran a newspaper publishes daily in fields. 4. It appears that in the meantime the services of the petitioner's husband were dismissed pursuant to enquiry proceedings having been initiated on the complaint of Sri Radhy Shyam and his wife vide order dated 14.03.1997. It further transpires from record that petitioner moved an application after more than 7 years to respondent no. 4 for granting her compassionate appointment on the ground of presumption of death of her husband in view of section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. No action was taken by the respondents on the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment hence aggrieved the petitioner has moved this petition praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in his office and pay her salary of the post. 5. No action was taken by the respondents on the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment hence aggrieved the petitioner has moved this petition praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in his office and pay her salary of the post. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Ramakant Singh Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary (Home), Lucknow and others reported in 2011 (86 ) ALR 788 with regard to presumption of civil death under Section 108 of the Evidence Act. The division bench of this Court in that case came to a conclusion that learned Single Judge did not consider that even if the suit was not filed, the presumption could be drawn, if the conditions imperative for raising the presumption were satisfied. Once a presumption of civil death is raised on the satisfaction of the conditions given in Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof that he is alive, is then shifted to the person who affirms that the person reported missing was seen and is alive, therefore, burden of proof lies upon the person who alleges death and shifts upon him the person who claims to have seen the person alive who is said to be missing. 6. There is no dispute in the instant case at hand that the petitioner's husband had been missing since 06.06.1996 and had not been seen alive by anyone hence the ratio decided in the case of Ramakant Singh (supra) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The second case relied upon by the petitioner is of Amit Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others (2009) 3 U.P.L.B.E.C. 2816, in that case, the father of the petitioner has gone missing on 22.04.1991 and an application was moved by the wife for appointment of one of the members of the family on compassionate. 8. 7. The second case relied upon by the petitioner is of Amit Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others (2009) 3 U.P.L.B.E.C. 2816, in that case, the father of the petitioner has gone missing on 22.04.1991 and an application was moved by the wife for appointment of one of the members of the family on compassionate. 8. The contention of the respondents in that case was that petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment in view of the Government Orders dated 09.12.1998, 13.07.2006 and 21.05.2007 which are not applicable with retrospective effect the application in the aforesaid case was moved on whereas the civil death of the petitioner had been presumed w.e.f. 22.04.1991, therefore, the law before the aforesaid Government Orders were passed, would be applicable as it was before the date of passing of the government Order dated 09.12.1998, 13.07.2006 and 21.05.2007 aforesaid. The Court in paragraph 14 held thus: " For the reasons stated above and in view of the decision rendered in Special Appeal No. (Defective) 673 of 2001, State through D.I.G. Karmik, Police Head Quarter, Allahabad and others Vs. Rishi Kumar Dixit, which is binding upon this Court, the impugned order dated 19.12.2008 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order i.e. whether the petitioner or family of the deceased is in cold penury; the family of the deceases is in need of immediate financial assistance after having survived for about 18 years after missing of father of the petitioner w.e.f. 22.04.1991." 9. The petitioner then relied upon the judgment rendered in Ajai Kumar Tiwari Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) Police Headquarter Allahabad and others reported in 2005-LBESR-E-955-ALLCJ-3-2211. In that case, petitioner's father was serving as Constable in Civil Police while posted at Allahabad, he went missing on 14.11.1990. The department sanctioned payment of gratuity and family pension to his dependents. The supplementary affidavit was also filed in that case stating that his father was born on 04.03.1947 and was to retire on 04.03.2007 and in the circumstances, the petitioner of that case ought to be given compassionate appointment as more than 7 yeas have passed for presumption of his civil death since the date his father had gone missing. The supplementary affidavit was also filed in that case stating that his father was born on 04.03.1947 and was to retire on 04.03.2007 and in the circumstances, the petitioner of that case ought to be given compassionate appointment as more than 7 yeas have passed for presumption of his civil death since the date his father had gone missing. Rule of 1947 regarding compassionate appointment, the court in that case held thus: "Noticing the Rules of 1974 are applicable where a government servant dies in harness. In law 'civil death' is a recognized concept. Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that in a case where a person has not been heard of by those who would naturally have heard of him, if he had been alive, for more than seven years, a presumptions rises in favour of his death, unless the person who alleges that the person is alive, establishes the fact. This section in an exception to Section 107, which provides that when it is shown that a man was alive within thirty years, the burden of proving that he is death is on the person who affirms it. 10. In the present case there is no denial in the counter affidavit about the sanction of family pension. The department as such has accepted the fact that petitioners father went missing on 14.11.1990, and was not heard of since then for seven years or even thereafter. 11. The Government order dated 09.12.1998 may apply to the fact situation where seven years have not expired from the date the Government servant is reported to be missing, but as soon as seven years expires and the person or persons who would ordinarily have heard of the person, allege that such person has not been heard of, a presumption of death arises and the social welfare measures under the Rules of 1974 springs into action. 12. The seven years period provided under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, may have been relevant more than a century ago to presume civil death. Now the means of communication and modes of travel have become much faster. There is as such a need to amend Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and reduce the period of seven years. However, this is to be considered by the Legislature and not by the Court. 13. Now the means of communication and modes of travel have become much faster. There is as such a need to amend Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and reduce the period of seven years. However, this is to be considered by the Legislature and not by the Court. 13. After noticing the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the parties, the Court in that case allowed the writ petition holding that Government order dated 09.12.1998 operates only for seven years from the date a Government servant goes missing after which the deeming provision of Section 108 comes into play for presuming civil death, and then unless it is established that the persons is alive, the consequences of civil death follow to be observed. 14. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) was then directed to decide the the representation, in accordance with law treating that the petitioner's father to have died, as a civil death, as expeditiously as possible. 15. The petitioner in the instant writ petition was dismissed from service vide order dated 14.03.1997. Seven years period had not expired on the date of termination of his service since 06.06.1996 the date he had gone missing for presumption of his civil death. Therefore his civil death could not be presumed on the presumption under Section 108 of the Evidence Act when husband of the petitioner had been dismissed from service after he had made his statement before the Enquiry Officer however, the question whether as the application for compassionate appointment could be moved in a case where the employee's services have been dispensed with for misconduct and for presumption of his civil death falls later on. The application claiming compassionate appointment on ground of indigent circumstances is to be answered by the authority concerned in accordance with law. 16. In the circumstances, respondent no. 2, the Inspector General (P.A.C.) of U.P., Lucknow is directed to decide the question referred to him as to whether the family of Constable No. 24478, husband of the petitioner is living also indigent circumstances after dismissal of petitioner's husband since the year 1996 or not. He may enquire into the facts as to how the family is surviving for the last about 15 years from the date the husband of the petitioner had gone missing and whether in the facts and circumstances, petitioner has any legal right for compassionate appointment or not. He may enquire into the facts as to how the family is surviving for the last about 15 years from the date the husband of the petitioner had gone missing and whether in the facts and circumstances, petitioner has any legal right for compassionate appointment or not. 17. With the aforesaid observations, writ petitions is accordingly disposed of. 18. No order as to costs.