Judgment Heard both sides. The petitioner is the wife of one M.V.Muthukumar, who was employed as a Grade I Constable in the Tamil Nadu Police force. The petitioner is married to Muthukumar on 9. 97. Through their wedlock, two daughters were born to them on 6. 1998 and 17. 1999 respectively. At present, they are going to school. 2. It is stated that her husband stopped visiting her and left the household from the year 1999 onwards. At that time, he was working in the Special Task Force and was posted in Marudam, Chennai-28. On 111. 1999, the petitioner made a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police about her husband. Subsequently, she got certain payments from her husband. Thereafter, letters sent to her husband came returned that he was not found traceable. However, the respondents were insisting that he had been transferred to Coimbatore. The petitioners attempt to contact him did not meet with success. Hence the petitioner filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, seeking maintenance. The Court ordered maintenance to be paid to her for a sum of Rs.3500/- per month. Even that amount was not able to be recovered. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked the Right To Information Act to know the whereabouts of her husband. Respondents were merely stating that her husbands whereabouts was not traceable. The petitioner sent a legal notice. But she received a communication from the third respondent that she should give necessary particulars for processing her pension papers. When the pension was not forthcoming, she filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to respondents to settle her claims on account of her husbands disappearance and also to pay widow pension from the date on which her husband was said to be missing. 4. Notice was ordered on the writ petition on 28. 2009. On notice from this court, the second respondent sent a written communication to the learned Government Advocate. It is stated that respondents were taking all steps to trace out the whereabouts of the petitioners husband. Since the petitioner could not divulge any details and since the husband of the petitioner was found to be missing only for five years and the case is still under investigation, her claim for pension cannot be forwarded. 5. Subsequently, the third respondent has given a memo, dated 111. 2009. Since the petitioner could not divulge any details and since the husband of the petitioner was found to be missing only for five years and the case is still under investigation, her claim for pension cannot be forwarded. 5. Subsequently, the third respondent has given a memo, dated 111. 2009. In that memo, it was stated that the petitioners husband was compulsorily retired from service on 27. 2006 as per the Chief Office proceedings, dated 9. 2006 and no pension application was received from him. Therefore, a man missing case was registered in B7 Police Station on 15. 2008, which is under investigation. In paragraphs 4 and 5, it was stated as follows: "4.In the Government letter No.21396/A/Pension/91-2, dt.91. The date of disappearance of employee/Pensioner will be reckoned from the date of FIR lodged with the police and the period of 2 years after which the benefits of family pension and gratuity are to be sanctioned will also be reckoned. 5.Based on the above, Government letter, pension benefits cannot be drawn and paid to M.Devi, W/o Muthukumar, since 2 year period is not lapsed in the above Man Missing case registered and also he is not a Govt. Servant as he was compulsorily retired on 27. 06 in PR No.45/05 dated 27. 06. Hence it is informed that only after 15. 2010 (after 2 years, as per Govt. letter No.21396/A/Pension/91-2, dt.4. 91), the following pensionary benefits will be drawn and paid to Tmt.M.Devi, W/o.Muthukumar, after following the procedures laid down in the Govt. Letter. 1) Family Pension 2) DCRG 3) SPF 4) GPF 5) TLS" 6.The stand of the respondents was that the husband of the petitioner cannot be deemed to be dead since such presumption has to be taken only after two years from the date of lodging of the FIR, i.e. 15. 2008. Therefore, at present they are not able to give pensionary benefits. While there can be no quarrel with that stand, but at the same time, the petitioner cannot be left high and dry. It is one thing to say that the petitioner is entitled for widow pension after two years, namely with effect from 15. 2010 but at the same time, she cannot be denied the relief of getting the dues payable to her husband. 7. It is admitted by the respondents that the petitioners husband was compulsorily retired from service on 27. 2006. 2010 but at the same time, she cannot be denied the relief of getting the dues payable to her husband. 7. It is admitted by the respondents that the petitioners husband was compulsorily retired from service on 27. 2006. In view of compulsorily retirement, he is eligible to get all terminal benefits including pension. The fact that he did not send pension papers cannot be a ground and there are dues like DCRG, Family Benefit Fund and Surrender Leave salary, etc. were also due to be paid. The respondents can always get an indemnity bond for payment of such amounts from the petitioner as her relationship with late Muthukumar is admitted by respondents. There are no other impediment in claiming the terminal benefits. 8. Under these circumstances, a direction will issue to the respondents to pay the petitioner the terminal benefits payable on account of death of Muthukumar, Grade I Police Constable, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. She must be paid the arrears of pension from 27. 2006 till 15. 2010. The petitioner is entitled to claim family pension with effect from 15. 2010. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.