KALYANMOY GANGULI, J. ( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a direction on the respondents to make the full payment of the provident fund money lying in Account No. WB/1609/280 of Kamakshya Chandra De to the petitioner. ( 2 ) ALTHOUGH Counsel have appeared for the respondents, yet no affidavits-in-opposition have been filed by the said respondents. The statements and allegations made in the petition go unchallenged and uncontroverted and have to be taken on their face value. ( 3 ) THE short case of the petitioner is as follows: the petitioner is the wife of one Kamakshya Chandra De who was a workman in M/s. Kedar Rubber Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. , at 92, Narikeldanga Main Road, Calcutta-700054 which was an industrial establishment and the workman of the said concern were covered by the relevant legislation relating to the provident fund. ( 4 ) THE husband of the petitioner was in permanent service of the aforesaid employer and he was regularly contributing in provident fund Account No. WB/1609/280 of which the respondent No. 1 is the controller and custodian. It is stated in paragraph 5 of the petition that the entire amount of the provident fund money of the husband of the petitioner are lying with the respondent No. 1. ( 5 ) IT is stated in paragraph 6 of the petition that the husband of the petitioner was out of employment in 1982 due to lay off and closure of the factory and an insanity developed in him during the said period. It is further stated that on June 6, 1982 the said husband of the petitioner suddenly left the house and thereafter he was not traceable although diary was lodged in the relevant police station. The husband of the petitioner has till today not been traced and the petitioner, as it would appear from supplementary affidavit filed with the leave of the court, does not know' the whereabouts of her husband for more than 7 years from the date of his sudden disappearance. The husband of the petitioner has till today not been traced and the petitioner, as it would appear from supplementary affidavit filed with the leave of the court, does not know' the whereabouts of her husband for more than 7 years from the date of his sudden disappearance. ( 6 ) ON or about October 21, 1986, the petitioner as the legal heir of her husband submitted an application duly filled in interms of Form 20 with the certificate of the employer to the respondent No. 1 for payment of provident fund money lying the credit of the account of her husband to her. A copy of the said application in Form 20 has been annexed to the petition marked with the letter 'b'. ( 7 ) IT appears that by a communication, dated May 23, 1988 which is annexure 'c' to the petition the respondent No. 2 returned the said Form with advice to the petitioner to the legal documents in support of the petitioner's declaration that her husband was dead as per Evidence Act. Section 108 of the Evidence Act provides as follows:"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 7 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. " ( 8 ) IT may be reiterated here that the petitioner's husband disappeared from his home on June 6, 1982 and this is September, 1989. In the Supplementary affidavit the petitioner has stated categorically that she has not heard of her husband's whereabouts for 7 years from the date of his disappearance. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, under the provisions of Section 108 of the Evidence Act the presumption is that the husband of the petitioner is dead and if the provident fund authorities seek to assert that the husband of the petitioner is not dead then the onus of proving that the husband is alive shifted on to the provident fund authorities. ( 10 ) UNLESS the provident fund authorities can give any proof that the husband of the petitioner is alive, the husband of the petitioner would be deemed to be dead as the wife of a person is the most likely person to know the whereabouts of her husband and she has denied an oath any such knowledge. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances, this application is disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a fresh application in Form 20 in accordance with law before the appropriate authority within 10 days from date and the authorities concerned are directed to consider such application of the petitioner with 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this application in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgement with special reference to the provisions of Section 108 of the Evidence Act. ( 12 ) THERE will, however, be no order as to costs. Application disposed of of.