The petitioner is a widow aged 73 years. Her husband, K.M. Samuel, was a clerk in the 5th respondent's school, which is an aided school. He was present in the school for duty on 30.11.1987. But, thereafter, he went missing. The 5th respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner's husband for unauthorized absence under Rule 74 of Chapter XIV-A of KER. The notice of the disciplinary proceedings could not be served on the petitioner's husband. Therefore, the notice was published in Deepika daily on 5.8.1989. Subsequently, by Ext.P3 order, the 5th respondent imposed on the petitioner's husband the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner filed a complaint before the police that her husband is missing. The Sub Inspector of Police, Adoor issued Ext.P1 certificate to the petitioner stating that in spite of enquiry regarding the whereabouts of K.M. Samuel, the whereabouts could not be ascertained. The petitioner submits that in view of the fact that more than 7 years have already elapsed since the disappearance of her husband and he has not been heard about since then, applying the provisions of Section 108 of the Evidence Act, it must be presumed that he is dead from the date of his missing. The petitioner submits that if that be so, it must be presumed that he died while in service. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to terminal benefits of her husband as also family pension. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

"1. Call for records relating to Ext.P1 to P17 and quash Ext.P3 proceedings by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction and declare that Ext.P3 proceedings are illegal.

2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondents to issue family pension and other service benefits to the petitioner with effect from 1.12.1987.

3. Call for records relating to Ext.P15 to P17 and quash Ext.P15 order by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction and declare that Ext.P15 order is illegal, unlawful and unsustainable in law.

4. To issue appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 1-4 to grant all the monetary benefits of K.M. Samuel to the petitioner with an interest of 12% from the date of missing of K.M. Samuel.

5. To issue appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 1-4 to give appointment to the legal heir of K.M. Samuel on the ground of compassionate appointment at the earliest. "2. In respect of the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner relies on two decisions of this Court, viz, Indira, K. v. Union of India and others, ILR 2005 (3) Ker. 801 and the judgment in W.P(C) No. 24613/2006, wherein two learned Judges of this Court have held that not with standing departmental proceedings against a person which ended in removal from service, if that person is not heard of for more than seven years, then, applying provisions of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, he must be presumed to be dead, in which case, despite the departmental proceedings, the legal heirs should be given benefits as applicable to a person who is no more on the presumption that he was no more from the date of his missing.

3. A counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent, wherein the stand taken is that since the petitioner's husband had been removed from service after disciplinary proceedings, which has not been challenged, no terminal benefits are due to the petitioner's husband and consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to family pension as well. The learned Government Pleader points out that the decision in Indira's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case, insofar as that was a case where there was a First Information Report registered in respect of the missing of the person, unlike in this case where no FIR has been registered.

4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

5. I am inclined to follow the view taken by the learned Judges in the decisions