Judgment N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. Heard Mr.A.Nagarajan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.A.Nissar Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.V.Subbiah, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent. 2. This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 7.6.2011 made in W.P.No.25787 of 2010, wherein challenge was made to the order dated 4.6.2010 rejecting the claim of the first respondent seeking arrears of pension payable to the first respondent's husband with further prayer for direction to the appellants to pay the pension arrears of the first respondent's husband and other benefits from 17.10.1993. The learned Single Judge noticed the fact that the first respondent's husband G.Khader Ali was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Corporation of Chennai, and retired from service on 1.12.1986. After his retirement, he was getting pension from the Corporation. On 17.10.1993 he went for offering prayers in the mosque, but he did not come back to home . A police complaint was filed as well as a paper publication was effected about the missing of the husband of the first respondent. The first respondent also filed a suit in O.S.No.2412 of 2003 praying for declaration that her husband G.Khader Ali had met with civil death. In the said suit, the Corporation of Chennai was made as a party and the suit was decreed by the civil Court on 20.1.2004 declaring that the first respondent's husband is deemed to have suffered civil death. 3. Based on the said civil Court decree dated 20.1.2004, the first respondent has sent representation to the Corporation of Chennai seeking family pension. The said request made by the first respondent was forwarded to the State Government and the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.117, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 28.3.2006 and directed the Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai to grant family pension and other benefits to the first respondent by holding that as the first respondent's husband was missing from 17.10.1993, he should be treated as dead. Thereafter, the first respondent was paid family pension by order dated 11.7.2007 and also paid arrears of pension payable from 6.2.2005 to 31.5.2007. Thereafter, the first respondent was paid family pension by order dated 11.7.2007 and also paid arrears of pension payable from 6.2.2005 to 31.5.2007. The first respondent's husband having been declared as civilly dead by decree dated 20.1.2004, the first respondent claimed arrears of pension payable to her husband from 17.10.1993, i.e. from the date of missing till 6.2.2005, the date on which the family pension was sanctioned. The said claim was sustained by the learned Single Judge, against which, this writ appeal is filed. 4. The point in issue is as to whether the first respondent, who is the wife of the said Khader Ali, who was declared as civilly dead by judgment and decree dated 20.1.2004, which having become final, is entitled to get the arrears of pension payable to her husband from 17.10.1993 to 6.2.2005 or till 20.1.2004. 5. It is not in dispute that the said Khader Ali was employed in the Corporation of Chennai as an Assistant Executive Engineer and retired from service on 1.12.1986 and he was paid pension till 17.10.1993 and from 18.10.1993 to 6.2.2005, he was not paid pension on the ground that he was missing. The family pension was also sanctioned to the first respondent on the ground that her husband was a recipient of pension. Considering all these aspects, the learned Single Judge was right in ordering arrears of pension payable to the first respondent's husband from 17.10.1993. The civil death was declared by the competent civil Court by judgment dated 20.1.2004. At least from the said date of civil death, the first respondent should have been paid family pension. However, it was paid only from 6.2.2005. 6. As the first respondent's husband was declared as "civilly dead" by judgment and decree dated 20.1.2004, the pension arrears is payable to the first respondent from 17.10.1993 to 20.1.2004 only and thereafter, the first respondent is entitled to get the family pension. Since, the arrears of pension payable to the first respondent's husband has not been paid till 20.1.2004, the appellants are bound to pay the minimum interest at the rate of 6% for the delay in paying the arrears of pension. 7. Since, the arrears of pension payable to the first respondent's husband has not been paid till 20.1.2004, the appellants are bound to pay the minimum interest at the rate of 6% for the delay in paying the arrears of pension. 7. In the result, the writ appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellants to calculate the pension arrears payable to the first respondent's husband from 17.10.1993 till 20.1.2004 and family pension arrears payable to first respondent from 21.1.2004 till 6.2.2005, both with 6% interest per annum, and pay the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.