Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. All these cases are tagged together since the common grievances of all these petitioners are that either they should be paid monthly pension from the date of their respective retirements under the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 or in alternative to refund 2% contribution deducted during their service career along with interest. 3. These petitioners have retired on different dates between the year 2002 to 2004 as stated in the individual writ petitions. They have also taken a stand that deductions were made from their salary during their service career, therefore, they ought to have been treated as member of 1998 Scheme. 4. The counter affidavits are said to have been filed in four of the writ petitions while according to the learned counsel for the respondent-CCL in other two writ petitions also the same stand has been taken on behalf of the respondents as evident from the instruction received by the learned counsel. 5. According to the respondents-CCL, after introduction of 1998 scheme, opportunities were given to the eligible candidates to exercise their option and those, who exercised their option, opting for the benefit of the scheme, were required to make deposit @ 2% from their salary for getting the benefits under the scheme. It is common stand as has been taken by the respondent-CCL that these petitioners have duly opted under the 1998 scheme and as per the scheme, they were required to deposit their contribution as indicated in the case of individual petitioners. They, however, did not deposit the said amount and have also not furnished any particulars that earlier to the 1998 scheme, deductions have been made from their salary. In such circumstances, according to the respondents, the petitioners have not deposited 2% contribution under the 1998 scheme along with arrears of contribution for availing the pension scheme. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these petitioners have even deposited 2% amount deducted from their salary during their service career before coming into force the scheme of 1998, which however has not been taken into consideration by the respondents while insisting upon to deposit the arrears also before 1998. Therefore they have come before this Court with the instant prayer. 7. Therefore they have come before this Court with the instant prayer. 7. Having considered the rival stand of the parties, the issue raised in the present writ petitions require determination of question of facts, which need to be decided at the level of the respondents firstly. The contention of the petitioners that they had deposited 2% contribution amount from their salary prior to the year 1998 is to be established by individual petitioners before competent authority of the respondent-employer by furnishing necessary proof thereof. If they are able to show that contributions were deducted from their salary prior to the 1998 scheme and they are also willing to pay the contributions sought to be made under the 1998 scheme than they are required to furnish undertaking to that effect before the respondents whereupon the competent authority under the respondent would process the claim of the individual petitioners and subject to fulfillment of such undertaking forward it to the CMPF for release of the admissible pension under the scheme of 1998. However, on determination of question of facts as aforesaid, if it is found that the petitioners deposited the amount prior to 1998 scheme but are unwilling to deposit further contribution under the scheme of 1998 thereafter, the respondent would refund the said amount along with statutory interest. 8. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the individual petitioners to approach the respondent no. 4, the General Manager, Central Workshop Central Coalfields Ltd. Barkakana, District-Ramgarh, which is said to be the area office under which each of individual petitioners have served and retired, with their individual representation duly supported with all necessary facts and documents in support of their aforesaid claim. The respondent no. 4, the General Manager, Central Workshop Central Coalfields Ltd. Barkakana, District-Ramgarh, if he is the competent authority, should take a decision in accordance with law on the aforesaid issues or if the matter is required to be decided by the Higher Authority, place the matter before the Competent Authority after due verification of the relevant records of the individual petitioners so that the instant issue can be decided by the competent authority. 9. Let such a decision be taken on behalf of the respondents within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of representation of the individual petitioners along with a copy of this order. 10. 9. Let such a decision be taken on behalf of the respondents within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of representation of the individual petitioners along with a copy of this order. 10. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.