ORDER : This writ application has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to appoint petitioner on compassionate basis as the petitioner's husband is traceless from 24.12.2007. Petitioner further prayed for other monetary relief including the arrears of salary etc. 2. It is submitted that since petitioner's husband is missing from 24.12.2007, thus, as per Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, it will be presumed that petitioner's husband had died, because he has not been heard from last seven years. Accordingly, it is submitted that in view of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, petitioner is entitled to be appointed on compassionate basis and also entitled to other monetary dues admissible to her husband. 3. A counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, wherein it is stated that in fact, petitioner's husband namely, Prabhakar Prasad was not attending his office without taking permission from competent authority. It is further stated that thereafter a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner's husband, but he did not participate in the said departmental proceeding, even though notice was issued and published in the local newspaper. Ultimately, petitioner's husband was dismissed from service vide memo no. 893, dated 06.02.2009 (Annexure-G to the counter affidavit). 4. An interlocutory application being I.A. No. 5859 of 2015 has been filed challenging the aforesaid order as contained in Annexure-G. In the interlocutory application, petitioner has stated that since her husband was deemed to have died in the year 2007 itself, therefore, the order passed on 06.02.2009 as contained in Annexure-G is non est because the same has been passed against a dead person. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. I find that the entire claim of the petitioner rest on the provisions of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, which runs as follows: “108. Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years.- [Provided that when] the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is [shifted to] the person who affirms it.” 6. From plain reading of the aforesaid Section, it is clear that if it is proved that a person has not been heard for 07 years by those who would naturally have heard about him if he had been alive, then the burden of proving that he is alive shifted upon the person who opposed it. 7. For proving the aforesaid fact that her husband is missing, petitioner has annexed Annexure-2, i.e. an application filed by her on 12.11.2009 before the Inspector of Police-cum-Officer-in-charge, Dhurwa Police Station wherein she stated that her husband is missing from 24.12.2007 from her Deoghar House. There is absolutely no explanation by the petitioner in the aforesaid application as why she had given such information after delay of about two years. It is further pertinent to mention that in the said application, petitioner stated that her husband was missing from the house situated at Deoghar. Thus, she ought to have filed application and/or lodge F.I.R. at Deoghar. Under the said circumstance, I find that Annexure-2 had been manufactured by the petitioner with intent to create evidence to be used in future. In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioner failed to prove that her husband was not heard from last 07 years and therefore he is not alive. 8. It is worth mentioning that the respondent-State has dismissed the petitioner's husband on 06.02.2009. Thereafter, above application filed before the Inspector of Police-cum-Officer-in-charge, Dhurwa Police Station on 12.11.2009, which also shows that after the above order petitioner has been created above document. 9. From perusal of dismissal order of the petitioner's husband, I find that the petitioner's husband was absconding because he had cheated so many persons and taken money from them for providing employment. 10. Since, I have already concluded that the petitioner has not proved by adducing cogent evidence that her husband was not heard to be alive from last 7 years, therefore, in my view, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner's husband died with effect from 24.12.2007. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that the order of dismissal has been passed against a dead person. 11. Since, I have already held that the petitioner has not been able to prove that her husband died with effect from 24.12.2007, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 12. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that the order of dismissal has been passed against a dead person. 11. Since, I have already held that the petitioner has not been able to prove that her husband died with effect from 24.12.2007, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 12. As noticed above, the petitioner's husband has already been dismissed from the service with effect from 06.02.2009, therefore, in my view, petitioner is not entitled to get any monetary benefit. 13. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this writ application as well as in the interlocutory application, accordingly, both the applications are dismissed.