JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. 1. Heard Mr. Anand Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kuldeep Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus to direct the concerned competent respondent to release all terminal dues to which petitioner being dependant of deceased employee is entitled on account of his premature death. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that husband of petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar went missing after his earned leave had expired on 5th January, 2008. The respondent establishment immediately took action as on 6th March, 2008 a letter was written by the Commandant, 84 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (for short, C.R.P.F.) to Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh to collect information about the whereabouts of missing Anil Kumar. It is also stated that some arrest warrant was issued on 4th March, 2008 to get Hawaldar Anil Kumar arrested but nothing further transpired in the matter and, accordingly, petitioner came to be informed by the department that Hawaldar Anil Kumar had suddenly disappeared without any leave and hence his services had stood terminated on 25.11.2008. It appears that a First Information Report was sought to be lodged for investigation regarding whereabouts of Anil Kumar and in this regard even a letter was written by the present petitioner on 11th March, 2010 stating clearly therein that whereabouts of Anil Kumar were not known as after he left the house to join duties four years ago, he never returned. It transpires that certain investigation took place in the matter of report lodged to the police regarding missing Anil Kumar with no further progress and, accordingly, Accountant, Central Reserve Police Force, Pinjaur, Haryana was informed by Sub Inspector of Kotwali, Phoolpur, Azamgarh on 8th May, 2010 that missing report of said Anil Kumar had been duly registered on 11th March, 2010 but even after thorough investigation conducted and search made whereabouts of Anil Kumar could not be known. It is in this background, the petitioner insisted for payment of terminal dues on account of she being recorded as nominee in the official records of Anil Kumar and more than seven years having passed after said Anil Kumar gone missing it was a case of civil death. It is in this background, the petitioner insisted for payment of terminal dues on account of she being recorded as nominee in the official records of Anil Kumar and more than seven years having passed after said Anil Kumar gone missing it was a case of civil death. The respondents instead of releasing terminal dues directed the petitioner to furnish succession certificate vide letter dated 19th June, 2015. Petitioner thus, approached this Court pleading that she undisputedly being married wife of Anil Kumar, who had gone missing since 2008, was entitled to terminal dues. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that if a person has gone missing for more than seven years then there will be presumption to be drawn regarding his death. 5. Initially this Court directed the respondents to obtain instructions as to why payment of terminal dues were delayed and upon instructions being furnished, the Court recorded very categorically that from the submissions advanced by the respondents, Provision 2 (VIII) of Office Memorandum dated 15th May, 1989, would not be attracted as petitioner was duly recorded to be nominee in the official record of Anil Kumar. A counter affidavit later on came to be filed and similar stand has been taken. Claus 2 (viii) of 1980 Group Insurance Scheme of Central Government is reproduced hereunder:- "2 (viii) If a member of the scheme dies without leaving any valid nomination, the insurance amount will paid to the members of the family as defined in para 19.3 of the scheme without production of any Succession Certificte. Other legal heirs will, however, be required to produce Succession Certificate" 6. Looking to the provisions as reproduced above, it is clear that in the event of there being no valid nomination only, that a succession certificate would be required. In the counter affidavit, no such stand has been taken that petitioner's nomination in the official record was doubted/disputed at any point of time. 7. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents tried to urge before the Court that missing employee himself had reported to have had some dispute with his family members and that was why he dropped all his children at his in-law's house and thereafter had gone missing, which would demonstrate that there was dispute somewhere and succession certificate would be required to avoid any future dispute regarding claim of terminal dues. In my considered view this argument so raised to be rejected only as there is no averment in any paragraphs of the counter affidavit that any third party has set up any claim to the terminal dues of missing Anil Kumar. An employer cannot deny terminal dues to the dependents of the deceased employee only for notion of apprehension that in future somebody may create dispute. In the considered view of the Court adjudication of an issue arises only when there is issue raised by a third party and if there is no dispute then uncontested claims deserves to be allowed. 8. Here is one such case where there was no contest regarding succession by petitioner to Anil Kumar's property, nor there was any third party setting up a rival claim to be the wife of Anil Kumar. In these circumstances, respondents were not justified in denying a valid claim of terminal dues to the petitioner. It is also a case where denial has been made on flimsy grounds despite report of police that there were no traces available of missing Anil Kumar. It is also not a case where the police had expressed any doubt regarding conduct and character of wife or her involvement in Anil Kumar going missing. Hence petitioner not only is entitled to claim qua terminal dues but also deserves interest for such forced litigation thrown upon her over these years. 9. In view of the above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. 10. Writ of mandamus is issued to respondent no. 2 to immediately get entire terminal dues of missing Anil Kumar calculated and disbursed to the petitioner Smt. Nirmala along with interest, which is computed @ 8% from the date petitioner became entitled to the terminal dues on completion of seven years of missing Anil Kumar till actual payment is made. Payment shall be made positively within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 11. It is made clear that in the event, disbursement is not made within the aforesaid period as directed herein above, the respondents would further be liable to pay interest @ 12 %. to the petitioner from the date of expiry of two months period till actual payment is made.