Pension and gratuity are valuable rights of employees and any delay in their payment may attract the penalty of interest. The completion of continuous service of five years is not necessary for the payment of gratuity in case of death or disablement. The employer is liable to pay interest on delayed gratuity payments. The Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 provides eligibility for pension and the option for employees to opt for pension if covered by the provident fund scheme.

Pramath Patnaik, J.

In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of direction commanding upon the respondents to make payment of the admissible retirement benefits with up-to-date statutory interest, such as, Pension under Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, Gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Provident Fund amount under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and the Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948.

2. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner has passed the Matriculation Examination in the year 1969 and Intermediate Arts Examination in the year 1972. The petitioner's father, an employee of CCL died in harness. Medical Examination of petitioner was conducted by the Respondent-Company on 15.02.1980 as is evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and the age of the petitioner has been assessed as 24 years. The petitioner was appointed in the services of the respondent Company Central Coalfields Limited on Compassionate basis in the year 1980 on Category-I post and appointment letter on the post of Coal Cutter has been issued on 28.02.1980 and the petitioner joined on 16.04.1980. The petitioner has been granted Sirdar's Certificate as well as Overman certificate under Coal Mines Regulation, 1957 on 14.02.1983 and 16.10.1990. Thereafter, Overman's certificate was renewed on 15.04.1998. The respondents have themselves mentioned petitioner's date of birth as 15.02.1956 recorded in his service sheet. However, the petitioner superannuated with retrospective effect from 31.01.2013 considering his date of birth 05.01.1953 recorded in the petitioner's Overman's Certificate dated 26.10.1990 as is evident from the letter dated 21.04.2015 (Annexure 9). Thereafter the petitioner made several representations dated 04.06.2015, 12.08.2015 and 15.09.2015 before the Respondent-Company requesting for payment of his retrial dues. When the respondents have not taken any action on the representations of the petitioner, the petitioner left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

3. Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel for the respondents CCL as well as Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-CMPF.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents-CCL, repelling the contentions made in the writ application. It has been inter alia, stated in paragraph 23 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner has continued in the service more than 2 years and 2 months from his date of actual superannuation i.e. on 31.01.2013 deliberately and by playing fraud and concealing the actual date of birth i.e. 05.01.1953 before the respondent Company. It has been stated that the Director General of Mine Safety has informed by his letter dated 13.01.2015 that the date of birth of the petitioner Sri Swami Nath Singh is 05.01.1953 as per the Office Record, Overman Certificate No. 9194 dated 26.10.1990 which was issued to the petitioner as is evident from Annexure-L to the counter affidavit of the respondent-CCL.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-C.C.L. by referring to the subsection (6) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 submitted that dismissal from service will debar the employee from getting payment of gratuity.

6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 9, controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been inter alia, submitted in the counter affidavit, that the Provident Fund and Pension claims in respect of the petitioner, CMPF A/c No. R/116-593 has not been received in the office of the respondent No. 9 from the colliery management as yet. It has been further submitted