K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. The claim of interest, rejected by the learned Single Judge, is the only issue in the appeal.

2. The appellant is the wife of one K.M. Samuel, who, while working as Clerk in the school of the 5th and 6th respondents, went missing after duty on 30.11.1987. That he went missing and remained so is not in dispute, since the management of the school had initiated disciplinary action against him for unauthorized absence, which notice was not served and after substituted service, enquiry was proceeded with, culminating in removal from service, as is evidenced by Exhibit P3. The appellant, the wife, having failed to trace out the missing person, was before the authorities seeking family pension, which, after much deliberation and exchange of communication, was rejected as per Exhibit P15 dated 11.6.2001. The appellant challenged these two orders before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, invoked the presumption under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act and directed payment of terminal benefits due to K.M. Samuel to the appellant along with the family pension due with arrears. However, the prayer for interest