ORDER : Heard Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner. No body appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with following prayers:- (i) For quashing the order dated 09.07.2012, whereby the Project Officer, Moonidih Colliery has passed the order of dismissal of her husband on the ground of absenteeism. (ii) For quashing the letter dated 16/18.03.2016, whereby the application for compassionate appointment of her son namely, Jitendra Ravi Das, has been dismissed on the ground of dismissal of his father from service since 09.07.2012. (iii) For giving her all the consequential benefits including the retiral benefits for which the petitioner is entitled for. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The husband of the petitioner namely, Tulsi Ravi Das was an employee of BCCL at Munidih Project and was working as Mining Loader having his Token No. 7059 and P.F. A/c No. D/87/1447 and Form “B” No. 5054. It is further submitted that the husband of the petitioner was suffering from mental disorder since 2004-05 and on 09.05.2005 at about 06:00 a.m. he has left his house for going to his office but he did not return back to his home. When the husband of the petitioner did not return to his home, the petitioner along with her other family members made all the efforts for searching out her husband but the same has went into vain. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Officer Incharge, Moonidih O.P. at Putki Police Station about the missing of her husband with a request to do the needful for searching out her husband. The petitioner also informed this fact to the Project Officer, Moonidih vide her letter dated 16.06.2005 with a prayer not to take any adverse action against her husband. Thereafter, she also informed this fact to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad and the Officer Incharge, Moonidih OP at Putki Police Station. After a lapse of few days, when her husband has not been traced out, she again wrote reminder letters on 01.09.2005 to the S.D.O., Dhanbad and the Project Officer, Moonidih, Dhanbad, giving a copy of the same to the other Officials of BCCL for taking necessary action. After a lapse of few days, when her husband has not been traced out, she again wrote reminder letters on 01.09.2005 to the S.D.O., Dhanbad and the Project Officer, Moonidih, Dhanbad, giving a copy of the same to the other Officials of BCCL for taking necessary action. It is further stated that when the Secretary, Janta Mazdoor Sangh came to know about the missing of the husband of the petitioner, who is suffering from mental disorder, he intimated this fact to the Project Officer, West Jharia Area, Moonidih, Dhanbad in writing and requested him not to take any adverse action against his service. It is further submitted that despite the notice of missing, mental disorder and several reminders for not taking any adverse action against the husband of the petitioner, the BCCL initiated departmental proceeding against her missing husband, upon which the petitioner immediately wrote a letter dated 13.04.2007 to the Project Officer including the S.D.O. Dhanbad agitating and expressing her displeasure on the unbecoming acts of the Employer-BCCL. The petitioner even wrote a letter dated 25.03.2011 stating therein as to how a departmental proceeding can be initiated exparte in absence of an employee and the employer-BCCL has already been informed about this fact. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner filed a Title Suit No. 116 of 2012 under Section 108 of the Evidence Act for declaration of her husband as dead under law due to his missing from more than 7 years. The learned Trial Court allowed the suit in favour of the petitioner and passed a Decree dated 30.06.2015 and in light of the order of learned Trial Court, the State Government has also issued a Death Certificate in favour of Tulsi Das on 17.10.2015. It is further submitted that the petitioner after getting the order of civil dead from the competent Court, duly applied vide application dated 15.04.2016 before the Project Officer, Munidih Project nominating her son as nominee to give compassionate appointment in light of provisions enshrined under Clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA-IX. It is stated and submitted that the representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of dismissal of her husband from service since 09.07.2012 and the same was communicated to the son of the petitioner vide letter dated 16/18.03.2016. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. It is stated and submitted that the representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of dismissal of her husband from service since 09.07.2012 and the same was communicated to the son of the petitioner vide letter dated 16/18.03.2016. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.B. Lal, submits that firstly the initiation of departmental proceeding in absence of the employee, serving of charge-sheet, despite information of his being missing since long, is unreasonable and carrying on the proceeding till dismissal is also against the service jurisprudence, in view of the fact that the Court of learned Civil Judge had already declared the husband of the petitioner as dead. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner has nominated her son to be appointed on compassionate ground, the same shall be considered by the respondents-BCCL sympathetically since the scheme for compassionate appointment has been envisaged with the object of granting employment to the member of the deceased’s family to enable them to mitigate the financial hardship and to come over the crisis in the family and ultimately, to give relief to the family from emergency. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its series of judgments has opined that the very object of giving the compassionate appointment is to extend helping hands to the bereaved family. Learned counsel further submits that though the petitioner is getting family pension but the amount of family pension is very low and it has been very difficult for her to give proper care to her entire family members with such a meagre amount and if the son of the petitioner would be employed on compassionate ground, it would really help her family in subsisting, sustaining and surviving in the present condition which they are facing through. 5. Nobody appears on behalf of the State. Several adjournments were granted for filing counter-affidavit but the same has not been filed by the respondents. 6. Upon going through the impugned order, it transpires that the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision for appointment on compassionate ground in case of deemed death and there is no direction as such, for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground in case of deemed death. 7. 6. Upon going through the impugned order, it transpires that the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision for appointment on compassionate ground in case of deemed death and there is no direction as such, for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground in case of deemed death. 7. Be that as it may, the case of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents on the ground that there is no provision for appointment on the ground of deemed death and as per the guidelines given by the State Government, there is no scheme to provide compassionate appointment on presumption of death or deemed death. It is an admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner has become traceless for the last several years i.e. more than seven years have elapsed and there is no possibility of the husband being traced. This Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner deserves consideration on the ground of deemed death. In the case of Sanjai Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2005) 3 AWC 2724 (LB) and also in case of Avinash Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., passed by learned Single Bench of Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17395 of 2011, in which it has been observed that there is no distinction between the civil death and natural death for the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment inasmuch as in both the cases bread earned of the family is not at all therein who would come forward to help the incumbents who are in penury. Purpose is to provide help to the family of the deceased employee whether it is case of natural death or it is a case of civil death. It has also been held by the Division Bench of High Court of Uttrakhand in Director General of Police and Ors. Vrs. Banshidhar Bhatt passed in Special Appeal No. 173 of 2008, in which the claim of the petitioner was allowed for compassionate appointment to the dependent of a person who was missing for more than seven years and after investigation the Police could not trace out the missing person. The Circular vide memo No. 7146 dated 31.10.2008 for appointment of dependents of traceless employee on compassionate basis issued in view of the judgment of Md. The Circular vide memo No. 7146 dated 31.10.2008 for appointment of dependents of traceless employee on compassionate basis issued in view of the judgment of Md. Nooralam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2007(4) PLJR 200 . In W.P.(S) No. 4848 of 2002 this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 13.08.2003 observed that, “In that view of the matter, whatever was applicable or is applicable to a dead person would naturally therefore by reason of the deeming fiction provided under Section 108 of the Evidence Act, should have been made applicable to a person who is presumed to be dead unless the department comes with a plea that he is still alive. In that event it would be for the department to prove his existence. That having not been done, the benefit of compassionate appointment should be accorded in favour of the petitioner.” The aforesaid view was also reiterated by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 672 of 2015 vide order dated 25.11.2016. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules and the judicial pronouncements, the order dated 09.07.2012 passed by the Project Officer, Moonidih Colliery, is hereby quashed and set aside and similarly, the letter dated 16/18.03.2016 is also quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the son of the petitioner is found fit for compassionate appointment, the letter of appointment should be issued within a further period of three weeks.