JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deuri, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as Mr. A. Chandran, learned Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh for the respondent No.4 and Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, AG for the respondent No.5. 2. Matter pertains to grant of family pension in respect of one Sri Ram Briksh Prasad Verma @ Ram Brij Prasad Burma who was earlier serving as an Assistant Teacher under the State of Arunachal Pradesh, who retired from service 30.06.1997. After his retirement, the aforesaid Sri Ram Briksh Prasad Verma was enjoining his pensionary benefits. 3. After his retirement, he was residing in Dullabcherra Bazar, P.S.-Ratabari, Karimganj district of Assam. Unfortunately, while he was residing in the aforesaid house in Karimging, because of mental disturbance he went missing from 07.04.2010 and his whereabouts has not been known to the members of the family. 4. As he had gone missing from Amulapatty Guard Para, P.S. Dibrugarh since 07.04.2010, the son of the petitioner submitted an application before the I/C Amulapatty Police Out Post, Dibrugarh on 10.04.2010 informing of the missing of the aforesaid Sri Ram Brij Prasad Burma, in connection with which, a G.D. was registered under O.P. GDE Entry No.192/10, dtd.10.04.2010 and necessary investigation was initiated. Unfortunately, till date the police have not given any report of the status of the said investigation. 5. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, be that as it may, after passage of 7(seven) years from the date of missing of the aforesaid Sri Ram Brij Prasad Burma, it will be presumed that the aforesaid person is no more. 6. If that is so, the authorities should provide the final report as in this regard as the same would be necessary for the purpose of grant of family pension in favour of the petitioner. 7. Learned Counsel for the State respondents has also submitted that in view of the provision under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if a person is not heard for more than 7(seven) years by those who would have naturally heard if he had been alive, the burden would shift to the State authority, if the State Authority would insist that the said person is still alive. 8. 8. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the concerned Police In-Charge of the Amulapatty Police Out Post has already certified that the aforesaid Sri Ram Brij Prasad Burma has not been traced from the date of filing of the complaint till the report dtd. 17.07.2017. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows: 108. Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years.-[Provided that when] the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that the has not been heard of for seven 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. 11. As provided under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, since the petitioner and the family members who would naturally come to know of the existence of Sri Ram Brij Prasad Burma have not heard of him for more than seven years, when an issue is raised as to whether the said Sri Ram Brij Prasad Burma is alive or dead, the burden of proving that he is alive would shift to any person who affirms that he is alive. 12. In the present case, it is not a case any of the authorities or any party had the said Sri Ram Brij Prasad Burma is still alive. 13. This Court has also noted the police report furnished by the I/C Amulapatty Police Out Post, Dibrugarh which states that the complaint about missing of the aforesaid person was given by the son of the missing person on 10.04.2010 and the aforesaid person has not been traced from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of issuing the report. 14. In view of the above, this Court would presume that the aforesaid Sri Ram Brij Prasad Burma is no more alive as he has not been heard for more than seven years by the petitioner and the family members. As such, respondent authorities can act upon the said police report for the purpose of grant of family pension in favour of the petitioner. 15. As such, respondent authorities can act upon the said police report for the purpose of grant of family pension in favour of the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the respondent authorities more particularly, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall do the needful for issuance of the final report as regards the factum of the missing of the aforesaid Sri Ram Brij Prasad Burma for more than seven years for the purpose of grant of family pension and be issued to the petitioner without any further delay, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Thereafter, the petitioner would approach the appropriate authority along with said final report and other required documents for grant of family pension in her favour. 16. It is also made clear that upon receipt of final report and documents as may be furnished by the petitioner to the competent authority, the competent authority will finalize the payment of family pension to the petitioner within a further period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of final report as well as required documents as directed above. 17. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.