JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner widow of an employee of Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited seeking a direction for grant of family pension as well as arrear pension as per the Coal Mines Provident Fund Pension Scheme, 1998 as well as for payment of the dues such as salary, family pension and any such arrear with interest. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s husband, who was working as an Ex-loader in the Handidhua Colliery was appointed at Deulabera Colliery on 01.01.1973 and her husband was removed from service on 16.10.1998 at a stage when her husband was completely deaf. On moving this Court, the husband of the petitioner was directed to be continuing in a surface job instead of underground mine and this Court also directed for payment of lump sum compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act. For continuing ill health, petitioner sought for medical help which being denied by the employer, he had applied for voluntary retirement and the company instead of accepting voluntary retirement, removed him from service on 16.10.1998. The petitioner’s further case is that in the meanwhile her husband died on 24.04.2002, as a consequence of which petitioner approached Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited for payment of family pension with effect from 24.04.2002 and arrear pension from 16.10.2002 till 23.04.2002. It is alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner’s husband was contributing towards Provident Fund and Pension Fund, by filing the document vide Annexure-1, which establishes petitioner’s husband’s Provident Fund Contribution at the relevant time in 1983 was at Rs.12.70p and Rs.2.18p vide A/C No.A/3/4/434/ Pen. Regd. No.A/3/3. The petitioner’s representations having not been responded and as the matter stood thus by communication dated 25.08.2009, she was communicated that steps have been taken to ascertain the personal file from the office of the Project Manager dated 31.08.2009 issued by the Regional Officer of the Provident Fund, Asst. Commissioner, Talcher as appearing at Annexure-5. The petitioner has been intimated in the meanwhile that the petitioner’s husband has rendered seven years of service, which is less than the required pensionable service for which the husband of the petitioner was not eligible to get pension. The petitioner was also issued with a similar letter by the Personal Officer of the establishment on 04.09.2009 indicating the reason of non-grant of pension. The petitioner was also issued with a similar letter by the Personal Officer of the establishment on 04.09.2009 indicating the reason of non-grant of pension. The petitioner alleged that the petitioner’s husband was appointed on 01.01.1973, therefore, by the date of removal of service, the petitioner’s husband had already rendered sixteen years of service, therefore, the petitioner contended that there has been wrong calculation of the pensionable service relating to the petitioner’s husband. The petitioner further alleged that even though the petitioner’s husband was removed on 16.10.1998 and in the meanwhile died on 24.04.2002 but, till date she has not been paid the leave salary, bonus and other dues as admissible to her husband. It is on these premises, the petitioner claimed for direction in the matter of payment of pension, arrear family pension, leave salary, bonus along with interest. 3. Per Contra, on its appearance, the opposite party nos.1 and 3, the Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited establishment filed a counter affidavit inter alia indicating therein that the husband of the petitioner Chhabi Naik, Ex-employee of Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited is not entitled to pension as he has not rendered ten years of minimum required pensionable service as per the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme, 1998. Chhabi Naik, the husband of the petitioner had only seven years and five months pensionable service. Further, even though the petitioner was repeatedly informed to submit the desired documents for refund of 2% pension contribution of her husband, but for non-supply of the required documents the same could not be materialized. With regard to the other dues, the opposite party nos.1 and 3 contended that as per the office record, Chhabi Naik has already been paid the gratuity of Rs.4,796.10 by sanctioned order dated 10.08.2001, Rs.52,000/-has been settled towards Coal Mines Provident Fund refund which has also been deposited in the petitioner’s Bank account. The opposite party nos.1 and 3 also contended that the petitioner’s husband was appointed as a loader on 01.07.1973 at Deulabera Colliery and removed from service on 05.05.1998 due to long absence. The opposite party nos.1 and 3 also contended that the petitioner’s husband was appointed as a loader on 01.07.1973 at Deulabera Colliery and removed from service on 05.05.1998 due to long absence. Basing on the direction of the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation, he was intimated to report to the Professor, E.N.T. Department, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for medical check up in the matter of E.N.T. examination but unable to trace any document regarding payment of any lump sum compensation being directed by the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Thus these opposite parties claimed that the petitioner’s husband was only entitled to refund of 2% pension contribution but, however, subject to submission of required documents as already intimated to the petitioner. On the premises, that the petitioner’s husband had only seven years five months pensionable service to his credit neither her husband was entitled to pension nor she is not entitled to family pension. 4. Opposite party no.5 on its appearance, filed an independent counter inter alia contending therein that following the definition of pensionable service as contained in paragraph-2 (o) read with Para-2(q) of the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 floated under Coal Mines Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948, one is required to render minimum ten years pensionable service and as the petitioner’s husband had less than ten years of pensionable service neither the husband of the petitioner is entitled to pension nor the petitioner is entitled to family pension. Coming to the Scheme sub-para-4 of para-10 of the aforesaid scheme and one is only entitled to return of contribution which amount shall be determined on the basis of specifications in Schedule-3. It is on these premises, the opposite party no.5 contended that the husband of the petitioner is not entitled to any pension, on the other hand, she is entitled to only get back the pension contribution of her late husband subject to production of documents as already intimated to her. 5. Upon receipt of the counter affidavits from the above parties, the petitioner filed a rejoinder to the counter of opposite party nos.1 and 3 inter alia disputing the averments of opposite party nos.1 and 3 with regard to Pension Fund Contribution by the Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited. 5. Upon receipt of the counter affidavits from the above parties, the petitioner filed a rejoinder to the counter of opposite party nos.1 and 3 inter alia disputing the averments of opposite party nos.1 and 3 with regard to Pension Fund Contribution by the Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited. The petitioner further contended that since the petitioner’s husband was initially appointed as a piece rated Badli Loader in Handidhua Colliery from the year 1970 and on the closure of the said colliery he was appointed at Deulbera Colliery thus it is false to submit that petitioner’s husband had not rendered the required pensionable service. It is next contended by the petitioner that her husband become deaf as he suffered 100% disability in both the ears due to blast sound in the underground mines of the opposite party establishment. For these reasons, the petitioner’s husband was treated in different hospitals in the year 1993 and the Medical Officer of the Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited has reported that the petitioner’s husband is unfit to hold underground job and was thus recommended for a job on the surface. The petitioner’s husband for loss of hearing filed W.C. Case No.38 of 1993 and the Workmen’s Compensation Court passed ‘Nil’ award. On moving an appeal, this Court by order dated 28.07.2003 in disposing M.A. No.86 of 1999 awarded a sum of Rs.63,000/- (rupees sixty-three thousand) a lump sum compensation. Further, this Court again on its intervention in the matter by disposing O.J.C. No.2987 of 1999 by order dated 29.04.1999 directed for consideration of the case of the petitioner’s husband for a surface job. Even though the petitioner’s husband was allowed for eight days for surface job, but subsequently he was terminated from service after eight days only. It is on these premises, the petitioner pressed her claim in the matter of grant of pension to the husband and the family pension in her favour. Similarly, in filing a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.5, the petitioner once again submitted that the replies in the counter of opposite party no.5 are false as based on wrong informations. The petitioner disputed the plea of the opposite party no.5 in the matter of Provident Fund Contribution and supported her claim relying on the payment made to her husband after his retirement. The petitioner disputed the plea of the opposite party no.5 in the matter of Provident Fund Contribution and supported her claim relying on the payment made to her husband after his retirement. The petitioner reiterated her claim in the matter of the pension of her husband and family pension in her favour. On the premises that her husband had long years of service and calculating the service period of her husband to be seven years five months is based on wrong calculation. It is on these premises, the petitioner justified her claim in the matter of pension in favour of her husband and family pension in her favour along with other retrial dues in connection with her husband. 6. Before proceeding to decide the case, it is necessary here to take note of the provisions contained in para-2(o) and sub-para-4 of para-10 of the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, which are quoted herein as follows:- xx xxxxxx “(o) ‘Pensionable service’ means- (i) the two-third of the period of actual service rendered by an employee from the date of opting for the Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and up to the 31st day of March, 1989, except the period for which no contribution has been made to the Family Pension Fund, and (ii) the actual service rendered by an employee from the 1st day of April, 1989 or the date of joining the service whichever is later, to the date of retirement or the death in service except the period for which no contribution has been made to the Family Pension fund or the Pension fund, as the case may be. xx xxxxxx (q) ‘Retirement’ in relation to an employee who is a member of the Pension Scheme means exit of an employee on completion of 10 years of Pensionable service.” xx xxxxxx “Monthly pension (1) An employee after completion of thirty years of pensionable service and on attaining the age of superannuation shall be eligible to receive monthly pension at the rate of twenty five percent of the average emoluments or not less than rupees three hundred fifty from the date following the date of superannuation till the date of his death. (2) Where an employee has not completed thirty years but has completed ten years pensionable service on attaining the age of superannuation, the pension shall be determined on the following basis:- (Length of pensionable service /30) x 25 per cent of the average emoluments. (3) Where an employee having completed ten years of pensionable service and would be attaining the age of superannuation within a period of twenty years, opts to retire from the service before attaining the age of superannuation, the amount of monthly pension payable to such employee shall be determined on the basis specified in Schedule-2. (4) Where an employee, has not completed ten years of pensionable service on attaining the age of superannuation, or opts to leave service, or his services are terminated, or becomes disabled before completion of ten years of pensionable service, the amounts payable by way of return of contribution to such employee shall be determined on the basis specified in Schedule-3” 7. From the observations made hereinabove, it appears that the petitioner has two claims : 1. In the matter of pension and then family pension; and 2. Arrears on account of retiral dues in respect of her husband. So far as the claim of pension and consequential family pension is concerned, the averments made in the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit and the submissions advanced in the Court reveals that the petitioner’s husband was an employee in the Deulabera Colliery since 01.01.1973 and he was removed from service on 16.10.1998. Facts further reveal on account of suffering of the petitioner on loss of hearing, he had moved the Commissioner of Workmens’ Compensation for grant of compensation and also for a direction to be engaged at surface instead of his engagement in underground mine. The Workmen Compensation Case No.38 of 1993 was terminated with a ‘Nil’ award and moving an appeal this Court in disposing the M.A. No.86 of 1999 by order dated 28.07.2003 awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.63,000/- (rupees sixty-three thousand) in favour of the husband of the petitioner. The Workmen Compensation Case No.38 of 1993 was terminated with a ‘Nil’ award and moving an appeal this Court in disposing the M.A. No.86 of 1999 by order dated 28.07.2003 awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.63,000/- (rupees sixty-three thousand) in favour of the husband of the petitioner. The materials available on record also further goes to make it clear that petitioner’s husband moving this Court in O.J.C. No.2987 of 1999 for a direction to the opposite party Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited authority to place the petitioner’s husband in the surface instead of under ground mine, this Court in disposing the said writ petition issued suitable direction to the company for posting the petitioner at surface and on her own submission in the writ petition as well as the rejoinder, the petitioner was provided with a job at the surface area of the mines for eight days after which the service of the petitioner was terminated. The document filed by the petitioner at Annexure-2 discloses the period of service of the petitioner as follows:- “Terminated from 23.2.984 to 6.11.85 No contributions Absent from duty 10.11.90 to 16.4.1998 This is your information and necessary action” 8. It appears from the above informations that the petitioner’s husband was initially appointed in Deulabera Colliery on 01.01.1973 he was terminated from service 23.02.1984 to 06.11.1985, the petitioner was absent on duty from 10.11.190 to 16.04.1998 and again terminated from service on 05.05.1998 due to long absence from the duty. The facts further reveals that the petitioner’s husband was allowed against the surface job following the direction of this Court dated 29.04.1999 in disposal of O.J.C. No.2987 of 1999. Document at Annexure-8 filed by the petitioner discloses that the service of the petitioner’s husband was terminated with effect from 23.02.1984 and he was re-appointed as Badli Loader with effect from 07.11.1985. A statement as appearing at Anenxure-A/5 as filed along with counter of opposite party no.5 discloses that the petitioner’s husband was in the service from 3/73, i.e., March, 1973 up to 3/99, which again discloses at Column nos.-3 and 4 of the statement the contribution of the petitioner’s husband for all these periods as reflected therein. From the Statement of service in relation to the petitioner’s husband, it appears that the petitioner was in service from March, 1973 till March, 1999 and no where indicates that petitioner was not in service for any period. From the Statement of service in relation to the petitioner’s husband, it appears that the petitioner was in service from March, 1973 till March, 1999 and no where indicates that petitioner was not in service for any period. This document at Annexure-A/5 read along with document at Annexure-2 makes it clear that the petitioner was an employee from 01.01.1973 till 05.05.1998 when he was terminated on account of long absence. Since the petitioner’s husband was terminated on 05.05.1998 and the petitioner’s husband was allowed to continue till at least 5th May, 1998 this Court is unable to appreciate the claim of the opposite parties under Annexure-A/5 regarding the contribution of the petitioner’s husband from 3/92 to 3/98 ‘Nil’. Since the petitioner’s husband was in service in all these periods maybe petitioner’s husband was absenting for those periods but in absence of communication to the petitioner’s husband by the employer with the position of service of the petitioner’s husband, during the above period dies none, the employer is not justified in showing the contribution of the petitioner’s husband during such period ‘Nil’ remain unjustified. 9. Be that as it may, the materials disclose that the petitioner’s husband has worked for a substantial period and during this period his Provident Fund contribution comes to the extent of Rs.52,000/-(rupees fifty two thousand), which has been refunded to the petitioner but the pension contribution of the petitioner’s husband at the rate 2% is still lying with the employer. It is under these premises while holding the calculation of the pensionable service in respect of the petitioner’s husband as appearing at Annexure-A/5 and the consequential order communicating petitioner’s husband as appearing at Annexure-2 as bad in law, this Court remits the matter back to the opposite party no.1 as well as the opposite party no.4 to re-compute the period of pensionable service in respect of the petitioner’s husband taking into account his whole service period and proceed in the matter of pension and family pension accordingly and complete this exercise within a period of eight weeks. 10. 10. Now coming to the claim of the petitioner, so far it relates to leave salary and bonus is concerned as appears from the submission of the Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited authority, the same has already been calculated and released in favour of the petitioner as appearing from paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this prayer of the petitioner. 11. Under the above circumstance, the writ petition disposed of with the direction as contained in Para-8 and 9 above, however, there shall be no order as to costs.