Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. The husband of the petitioner, namely, late Sh.Gurdev Singh, worked as Joint Director in the Department of Local Funds and Accounts, Government of Punjab. He went missing on 5.8.2000 and a DDR No.23 to this effect was lodged by the petitioner with the Police Post, Sector 22-Chandigarh, on 8.8.2000. The whereabouts of the husband of the petitioner could not be located and a non-traceable report was submitted by the police on 26.12.2001. 2. In order to provide immediate financial assistance to the dependent family members of the missing employee, the Government of Punjab issued a policy circular dated August 29, 1986, to the following effect:- "Under present system, when a Government employee goes missing and no clue of his is found, then such missing employees heirs get pension and other retiral benefits after 7 years. But this 7 years period is very long, which causes many problems for the family members of the missing employee. In this regard, by adopting Guidelines of Indian Govt., which have been given in their letters No.1/17/86 P & W.P. Aug.29, 1986; Pb.Govt. has decided that: 1. If a Govt employee goes missing, then the family members nominated by the employee will first be given his/her pending salary and leave encashment and also G.P.F. 2. After completion of one year, and according to the conditions put in the next para, missing Govt. employees family can be given other family Pensionary benefits like: Gratuity/Family Pension etc. But these Pensionary benefits can be given only after satisfying following conditions:- (i) The family of the missing employee should have lodged a report about the missing employee and should have got the report that despite the best efforts, police could not trace the missing employee. (ii) An indemnity bond should be taken from the dependent member/nominated member stating that in case the missing employee is traced or if he claims for his dues, then all the amounts of pensionary benefits will be adjusted. (iii) In case, the applicant doesnt get the gratuity even after 3 (three) months of submitting the application, the Department/Office has to pay prevalent interest rate also on the said Gratuity amount and also disciplinary action should be taken against the concerned guilty employee/officer, after fixing the responsibility. xx xx xx It is further clarified that the date of missing of the Govt. xx xx xx It is further clarified that the date of missing of the Govt. employee will be the date on which the FIR has been lodged with police and for giving family pension; the period of 1 (one) year will be from the date of registering of F.I.R." 3 The undisputed facts are that against the release of GPF/Leave encashment/gratuity and other pensionary benefits within one year as contemplated under the above-reproduced Government Policy, the following payments were made by the department to the petitioner on different dates:- Amount Date of payment G.P.F. Rs.4,88,679/- 27.7.2005 alongwith interest upto 31.5.2000 G.P.F. (balance amount) alongwith interest upto 25.5.2002 Rs.1,13,036/- 7.3.2006 Leave Encashment (without interest) Gratuity (without interest) Gratuity 22.4.2002 Rs.1,27,644 31.8.2007 Over Rs.2 lacs Paid in the year 2009 during the pendency of this writ petition. Ex-gratia No payment 4 The petitioner has now approached this Court with two-fold grievances. Firstly, she claims interest on the delayed payments and secondly, she seeks a mandamus for the grant of ex-gratia monetary assistance in terms of Rule 2.7 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol-ll. 5. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit, without disputing the payment schedule reproduced above. The respondents have explained that in the absence of the nomination by the employee, the G.P.F. amount could not be released in favour of the petitioner as an indemnity bond was to be furnished by the dependent/nominated member of the missing employee to the effect that in case the missing employee is traced out or if he claims the dues, then the amount of pensionary benefits shall be liable to be adjusted. As regards the delay in payment of gratuity, it is explained that the petitioner continued to occupy the Government accommodation in U.T. Chandigarh from 15.9.2003 to 15.10.2004 unauthorisedly for which she was held liable to pay license fee by the Chandigarh Administration and the said amount having been adjusted against the gratuity, the balance amount was paid to her on 31.8.2007. 6. 6. As against it, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though initially the Chandigarh Administration calculated the license fee to the tune of more than Rs.3 lacs, however, upon agitation by the petitioner, it was reduced to Rs.10,000/- only and after due deduction, only that the balance gratuity of over Rs.2 lacs has now been paid to the petitioner in the year 2009, during the pendency of this writ petition. 7. With reference to claim No.2, it would be apposite to reproduce Rule 2.7 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-ll, which reads as follows:- "2.7. Government may allow ex-gratia grant to the members of the family of a Government employee including a member of All India Service serving under the Punjab Government who dies while in service as indicated in the annexure to this chapter." 8. Learned State counsel submits that since the husband of the petitioner has not died while he was still in service, no ex-gratia is admissible. The petitioner, on the other hand, urges that since her husband has been missing for the last seven years, he is deemed to have died and therefore, ex-gratia amount is admissible to her. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. 10. There can indeed be no doubt that the purpose behind the Government policy dated August 29, 1986 is to obviate the financial hardship that the dependent family members of a Government employee may suddenly face when such an employee goes missing. The policy having been issued with an avowed object of welfare means, it deserves to be interpreted and given effect liberally. That being so, it was imperative upon the authorities to make an earnest effort to release the dues like G.P.F., leave encashment, gratuity and family pension etc. within a period of one year from the date, the FIR/DDR was lodged regarding the employee gone missing. It may be true that the benefits of GP.F. could not be released at the earliest due to the procedural delay as the petitioner was required to furnish the indemnity bonds but the fact of the matter is that the arrears of GP.F. which could have been paid to the petitioner in the year 2001, remained with the respondents and could not be utilized by the petitioner till the same were paid to her in the year 2005-2006. In other words, the interest drawn on such arrears during the afore-stated period actually went to the States coffers. For this reason, the petitioner is held entitled to the interest on the first instalment of GPF upto 27.7.2005 till it was paid and on the second instalment till it was paid to her on 7.3.2006. 11. Similarly, there is a delay of about 7 months in the payment of arrears of leave encashment. The petitioner is held entitled to the interest @ 7% per annum on these arrears upto 22.4.2002 when the payment of leave encashment was made to her. As regards the gratuity, there is no denial to the fact that the Chandigarh Administration had assessed the license fee/penal rent to the tune of over Rs.2 lacs and had asked the State of Punjab to recover the same from the retiral,dues of the employee. The respondents were, therefore, justified to with hold the amount of Rs.2 lacs of the gratuity till the petitioners liability to pay the penal rent was set-aside by this Court vide order dated 2.5.2006. The petitioner is accordingly held entitled to the interest @ 7% per annum on the arrears of gratuity w.e.f. 1.6.2006 till it was actually paid to her. 12. Adverting the second claim, namely, entitlement of the petitioner for ex-gratia financial assistance under Rule 2.7 of the Civil Services Rules, Vol.ll, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that after the expiry of seven years from the date when the husband of the petitioner went missing he is deemed to have died a civil death and on expiry of 7 years period from the date of his missing, no distinction can be drawn between the actual death or deemed death. The petitioner shall, thus, be entitled to the ex-gratia grant as may be admissible under the Rules/Government Policy, after the expiry of 7 years of missing period of her husband, namely, after the year 2007. The respondents are accordingly directed to release the ex-gratia grant in favour of the petitioner at the earliest, however, without any interest thereon. 13. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms and it is directed that the afore-stated arrears shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. 14. Dasti Petition allowed