JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the grant of following reliefs:— "(a) Quash the impugned order dated 7.2.2002 (P-13) being illegal and arbitrary; (b) Direct the respondents to pay the full benefits available under Army Group Insurance on the death of insured to the petitioner; (c) Direct the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the son of the petitioner; (d) Direct the respondents to produce all the relevant records alongwith reply for perusal by this Honble Court” 2. Facts as they emerge from the pleadings of the parties, as also regarding which the parties are not at variance need to be briefly noted. 3. Petitioner is the wife of Sepoy Kundan Lai No. 9209921. He was re-enrolled into Defence Security Corps on 30.9.1985. He had gone on 15 days casual leave from 12.6.1995 to 26.6.1995. He did not resume his duty after expiry of this leave. Army Authorities declared him deserter, because according to them he was neither apprehended nor had voluntarily rejoined duty. This was preceded by issuance of apprehension roll to apprehend him.. 4. Petitioner claims that since nothing was heard from her husband, she lodged a report at Police Station Dhalli on 4.8.1995. Petitioner vide Annexure P-2 asked the Complaint Advisory Board to give family pension, gratuity, AFPP Fund, AGI benefits and terminal credit balance besides looking into other prayers made by her. 5. After exchange of communications, vide Annexure P-10 respondent No. 2 remitted the amount of saving entitlement, contribution amount, saving interest, annual bonus and released a total sum of Rs. 15,256/- in favour of the petitioner. 6. Another fact needs to be noted here is, that petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 171 of 1999, which was disposed of on 22.7.1999. Since the husband of the petitioner was missing from 27.6.1995, as such he was not presumed to be dead. 7. Here it may also be appropriate to notice that there is Army Group Insurance Directorate and husband of the petitioner was its member under the Army Group Insurance Scheme. Till and so long he was in service, he was regularly contributing to this insurance scheme. As per para 89 of the Army Headquarters Adjutant Generals Branch, Liaison Letter-1/1993-94, insurance cover is provided to officers/JCOs/Ors etc. For ready reference this paragraph is extracted here in below:— 9. Till and so long he was in service, he was regularly contributing to this insurance scheme. As per para 89 of the Army Headquarters Adjutant Generals Branch, Liaison Letter-1/1993-94, insurance cover is provided to officers/JCOs/Ors etc. For ready reference this paragraph is extracted here in below:— 9. Benefits From AGIF in Case of Death While in Service.—The following benefits are available from AGIF to the beneficiary of a Member in case of death of the Officer/JCO/OR while in service:— (a) Insurance cover of Rs. 3.5 lakhs in case of Officers and Rs. 1.5 lakhs in case of JCO/OR. Air OP Officers, on active strength of Air OP Units, are entitled to additional insurance cover of Rs. 2 lakhs. (b) Maturity benefits accrued upto date of death." 8. So far maturity benefits in terms of this para are concerned, those have been released in favour of the petitioner. However, amount of insurance cover has not been released to her. For getting the amount of insurance cover, supra, she got a legal notice issued, Annexure P-12 to the respondents. Paragraph 2 of this legal notice reads as under : "2. That the husband of my client returned to join his duties but is missing since 27 June, 1995 and his whereabouts are not known to and he has not been heard of for last about seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive. Now, legally the presumption is that he has died. It is also pertinent to submit herewith that as per the instructions issued by Government of India, Ministry of Defence Letter No. 12(16)/1/86/ D (Pens/Sers) dated 26.8.1993 issued to all the Chief of Staffs, all the outstanding dues, i.e.; pensionary benefits etc. are to be released within one year of FIR lodged with regard to missing of a person. It is pertinent to submit herewith that all other dues were paid to my client except the amount of insurance payable on the death of a soldier." 9. Annexure P-12 was replied to by respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P-13 in the following terms:— "Madam, 1. Refer to legal notice dated 29 January, 2002 issued by Shri Prem P Chauhan, Advocate on your behalf. 2. Annexure P-12 was replied to by respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P-13 in the following terms:— "Madam, 1. Refer to legal notice dated 29 January, 2002 issued by Shri Prem P Chauhan, Advocate on your behalf. 2. In this connection it is intimated for your information that insurance benefits are payable to NOK only in the event of death while in service and in those cases where a serving soldier is declared missing presumed dead under the provisions of SAO 5/S.85 while performing bona fide duty and sufficient proof of such presumption of death exists both documentary or eye-witnesses and there is a valid Court order declaring the individual missing presumed dead. 3. In order to enable us to consider payment of the insurance amount, you are advised to obtain Court Order declaring your husband as Missing Presumed Dead under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act Section 108." 10. Present writ petition has been filed for quashing Annexure P-13, and for issuing consequential directions to the respondents for the release of the amount to which the petitioner is entitled to on the basis of presumptive death of her husband as per Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act. 11. Husband of the petitioner was declared as deserter on 14.8.1995 by the Army Authorities as a result of Court of Inquiry conducted against him because of his failure to rejoin the unit after having availed 15 days casual leave as noted hereinabove. Petitioner reported that her husband was missing. Meanwhile, CWP No. 171 of 1999 was filed in this Court, and stand of the Army Authorities was that action was in progress for declaring her husband as "missing" instead of "deserter". As per stand of respondents No. 1 and 3 this writ petition was dismissed with directions to the respondents to finalize and make payment of the legitimate dues of the petitioner within three months. At the same time, on receipt of documents from the petitioner, a fresh Court of Inquiry was conducted by the Army Authorities, and as a consequence of it, her husband was declared as "missing". 12. Following amounts inclusive of Rs. 15,256 were released by the respondents in favour of the petitioner:— "(a) AGI Maturity benefits Rs. 15,256/- vide Cheque No. 691222 dated 28 October, 1999. (b) AFPP Fund credit balance Rs. 28,984/- vide Cheque No. 869695 dated 29 October, 1999. 12. Following amounts inclusive of Rs. 15,256 were released by the respondents in favour of the petitioner:— "(a) AGI Maturity benefits Rs. 15,256/- vide Cheque No. 691222 dated 28 October, 1999. (b) AFPP Fund credit balance Rs. 28,984/- vide Cheque No. 869695 dated 29 October, 1999. (c) Family pension granted from 4 August, 1995 vide PPO No.F/ NA/7424/99 dated 5 October, 1999. (d) Further credit balance of pay and allowances Rs. 5,760/- through Money Order dated 30 Jun 97. (e) Encashment of earned leave Rs. 2,437/"- through Money Order dated 24 Jun 2000." 13. In the aforesaid factual background, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that asking for declaration from the Court vide Annexure JM3 to the effect that her husband who was missing is to be presumed to be dead, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 14. Admittedly, husband of the petitioner did not rejoin his unit after availing casual leave which he was supposed to have rejoined on 27.6.1995. Petitioner promptly lodged report with Dhalli police as is evident from Annexure P-l on 4.8.1995. Seven years have elapsed from both dates, i.e. 27.6.1995, as well as 4.8,1995. Therefore, even if either of these two dates is taken since when the petitioner is missing and/or is unheard by those who ordinarily would have heard of him if he had been alive, statutory presumption can safely be raised under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act. In these circumstances none of the respondents could and in fact should have insisted upon the petitioner for getting a Court order declaring her husband, who was missing to be presumed to be dead. 15. In addition to this, in the instant case after having accepted the information provided by the petitioner that her husband had left to rejoin his duty after availing casual leave and on his having not rejoined, instead of his having been earlier declared as deserter, he was declared to be missing. Therefore, respondents cannot be permitted now to say that they are not aware of the date since when he was missing. Petitioner had provided positive information that he had gone to resume duty after availing casual leave and was not heard of since then. Therefore, to insist that petitioner should obtain a Court Order in that behalf is not correct. 16. Petitioner had provided positive information that he had gone to resume duty after availing casual leave and was not heard of since then. Therefore, to insist that petitioner should obtain a Court Order in that behalf is not correct. 16. Another fact that needs to be noted here is, that it is not the case of the respondents that husband of the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of insurance cover in case of his death. Respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P-13 has only called upon the petitioner for providing a Court Order regarding presumptive death of her husband. This in our considered view is not correct in the facts and circumstances of this case. 17. While dealing with a case of Army personnel who absented without leave for the camp and was not heard of either by his wife or other family members or by the Army Authorities, it was held that presumption arises under the provisions of the Evidence Act that he was dead. Relevant paragraphs from the judgment in Smt. Sandhya Devi Parmar v. Union of India and others, 1997(2) SLC 310, are extracted hereinbelow : "7. However, it is seen that it is more than 10 years since the petitioners husband was not heard of either by the petitioner or the other family members or the respondents. In such circumstances, a presumption arises under the provisions of the Evidence Act that he was dead. Hence, the petitioner will be entitled to get the family pension and other service benefits due to her husband in accordance with the Rules. 8. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the entitlement of the petitioner for family pension and other benefits in accordance with the Rules on the footing that her husband is presumed to be dead. The authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on that footing within a period of three months from this date and communicate their orders to the petitioner." 18. Nothing to the contrary has been brought to our notice on behalf of the respondents so as not to follow this decision. Presumption under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act in the facts and circumstances of the present case is clearly there. Therefore, stand to the contrary of the respondents cannot be sustained either in the facts or in law. 19. Presumption under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act in the facts and circumstances of the present case is clearly there. Therefore, stand to the contrary of the respondents cannot be sustained either in the facts or in law. 19. It is not understood as to why after having released maturity benefits accrued upto the date of death having been released, the benefit of insurance cover is being withheld and petitioner is being called upon to provide a Court order in that behalf. Maturity benefits accrued upto the date of death are payable, and in fact had been actually paid by the respondents to the petitioner. What follows from a reading of clause (b) of Para 89 supra is, that taking a particular date of death of the petitioners husband, the benefits to which she was entitled to had actually been released in her favour by the respondents. 20. Once this conclusion is arrived at, there is no justifiable ground muchless reason for the respondents to withhold the amount of insurance cover in terms of paragraph 89 (a) supra, and their stand that petitioner must obtain a Court order in that behalf, cannot be sustained. Therefore, Annexure P-13 needs to be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. No other point was urged. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and consequently Annexure P-13 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. What follows from this is that the respondents are now directed to release the amount of insurance cover in favour of the petitioner by or before 31st October, 2005, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 12% per annum from 4.8.1995 till the date of its actual payment. Respondents are also burdened with costs of this writ petition quantified at Rs. 5,000/- also to be remitted alongwith the amount of insurance cover in terms of paragraph 89(a) extracted hereinabove. Writ petition allowed.