The Telangana High Court has recently refused to grant a compassionate appointment to a son who sought employment on the grounds that his father, a government employee, has been missing for years. In its May 5, 2026, judgement (WA no. 267 of 2026), the court examined the case of a lineman in the Bhainsa Division who went missing on March 7, 2012, while serving in the department. The high court said that the compassionate appointment rules of the Telangana government explicitly prohibit any appointment if the missing employee had less than seven years of service remaining on the date the FIR for the missing person is filed. The HC said, in this case, his father had four years, three months, and 23 days of service left for his retirement on the date of his disappearance, i.e., March 7, 2012, as he was born on June 19, 1958, and was set to retire from service on June 30, 2016. But the son argued before the court that more than seven years have passed since the filing of his father's missing case. The police presumed his father dead under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. On this ground, the son urged the court to treat the case as one of "death in harness" and grant him an appointment under the applicable rules.The Telangana High Court said that Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, can't be used here, as the compassionate appointment scheme specifically carved out clauses for missing persons and those who have died in harness situations. Thus, the court can't rewrite the scheme rules.Also read: 25 years after father went missing, family seeks compassionate appointment for job; HC rejects plea due to delayLet's know the case in detail. As per the submission to the court, the family of the lineman filed a missing complaint in 2012 at the police station. However, his whereabouts could not be traced. The police authorities ultimately issued a certificate declaring him untraceable after more than seven years elapsed.Without him (the lineman) his family had been left without any source of livelihood. So, his son requested a job on compassionate grounds. The son had completed his Intermediate education.The said request was rejected by the Divisional Engineer, Operation Division, Bhainsa, on July 17, 2020. The reason cited in this rejection was sub-clause (b)(i) in a government instruction issued by the Corporate Office at Warangal and the Telangana government's compassionate appointment scheme in respect of missing employees.Also read: Son got job after father’s death on compassionate grounds but at lower rank despite higher qualification; SC says no automatic right to higher postThe exclusion clause in sub-clause (b)(i) states that compassionate appointments for family members can't be given for missing employees if the employee had less than seven years left for retirement on the date the missing person's FIR was filed. On this basis, the government concluded that that case did not satisfy the conditions prescribed under the compassionate appointment scheme and consequently rejected the claim. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection, he (son) filed an appeal in the high court in 2024; However, his request was also rejected by the single bench of high court. He then filed an appeal before a larger bench of the Telangana High Court. On May 5, 2026, the larger bench of the high court, too, rejected his request; and thus, he did not get any job on compassionate grounds yet.Read below to know why the son lost this case.Also read: After teacher's death, married daughter's application for compassionate employment was rejected, she fights back and wins in High Court of Himachal PradeshTelangana High Court larger bench order and discussionA summary of the court order is as follows:Telangana has specific exclusion clause for missing employeesThe high court said that Telangana adopted the Andhra Pradesh compassionate appointment rules (G.O.Ms.No.687 dated 03.10.1977), wherein provision is made for the grant of compassionate appointment to a dependant family member in certain contingencies, including cases where a government employee has gone missing and his whereabouts remain unknown for more than seven years, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions stipulated therein. The high court said that among the many conditions, one such condition tells about service time left before retirement, and thus his case falls under clause (ii) of the scheme, i.e., it pertains to a missing employee. Even though he fulfilled the other conditions, namely the FIR and police certification about his father being untraceable for more than seven years, the exclusion clause contained in sub-clause (b)(i) is not satisfied. The exclusion clause says that the benefit shall not be applicable in cases where the government servant had less than seven years of service remaining before retirement on the relevant date.Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a matter of right, but an exceptionThe high court also rejected the son's request for a compassionate appointment, stating that it is a beneficial scheme and therefore requires a purposive and liberal interpretation.The high court said: "Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a matter of right but an exception carved out from the constitutional mandate of equality of opportunity in public employment. Such appointments can be made only in strict accordance with the terms of the scheme framed by the employer." The Telangana High Court said that they cannot direct appointment if it dilutes the conditions stipulated therein on considerations of sympathy or equity. Consequently, where the scheme itself expressly excludes certain categories, the same must be given full effect and cannot be relaxed by adopting a liberal interpretation. Case law cited: Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138There is clear distinction between died in harness and missing for more than seven yearsThe high court said that it is evident that the scheme itself draws a clear distinction between two categories of employees: (i) employees who die in harness, and (ii) employees who go missing and whose whereabouts are not known for more than seven years. In respect of the latter category, the high court said that the scheme imposes specific conditions governing the grant of compassionate appointment. One such condition, contained in Clause (b)(i), provides an express exclusion, namely, that the benefit shall not be applicable if the employee had less than seven years of service left to retire on the date from which the FIR was filed. The high court said: "It is to be noted that the language of the said exclusion clause is clear, unambiguous, and admits of no exception, and is a specific and objective condition incorporated in the scheme itself…..To interpret the clause liberally so as to ignore the said condition would amount to rewriting the scheme, which is impermissible...…"Missing employee cannot be treated as dead even if seven years have elapsed and 'presumed dead'The high court also rejected the son's argument that since his father has not been heard of for a period exceeding seven years and must, therefore, be presumed to be dead under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the case ought to be treated on par with one of "death in harness".Section 108 of the Evidence Act provides that when a person 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 shifts to the person who asserts it.The high court said that this section cannot be mechanically imported into an entirely different statutory context, namely, a scheme governing compassionate appointment which contains its own definitions, conditions and limitations. The high court said: "Significantly, the scheme in question does not treat a missing employee as "dead." Instead, it creates a distinct category of employees who have gone missing and whose whereabouts are not known for more than seven years."Lawmakers drafted the compassionate appointment and missing persons clause very consciouslyThe high court said that it appears that the compassionate appointment scheme has been consciously drafted to address the peculiar situation of missing employees. The high court said: "The framers of the scheme were evidently aware of the legal presumption of death that may arise after seven years under Section 108 of the Evidence Act. Despite such awareness, they expressly retained the exclusion clause in respect of employees who had less than seven years of service remaining."The high court said that this clearly indicates that the mere passage of seven years and the consequent evidentiary presumption of death were not intended to automatically confer eligibility for compassionate appointment. Thus, the high court said that accepting his (the son's) submission would render the separate framework in the scheme for missing employees redundant. If every case of disappearance were to be treated as one of "death in harness", the specific conditions prescribed for missing employees, including the seven-year waiting period, would become meaningless. The high court said: "The presumption under Section 108 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to bypass the clear conditions contained in the scheme governing cases of missing employees, and the appellant's submission in this regard is rejected."Order:The court rejected his (the son's) compassionate appointment case but made it clear that he may avail [himself of] any remedy that may be available under law for claiming terminal benefits, pension, or other dues of his father in accordance with the applicable rules.