ORDER : 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. 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 that the Provident Fund claim is required to be forwarded by the Kargali colliery management of CCL i.e. employer of the member along with necessary documents duly signed by the member/claimant and duly attested by colliery management for settling the claim by the respondent No. 9 as per the provisions of CMPF Scheme 1948 and CMPS - 1998. It has been further submitted that the office of the respondent No. 9 is only concerned with PF and pension matter of CMPF member and except that, other dues/benefits of CCL employee will be settled or paid by CCL authority only. 7. Mr. It has been further submitted that the office of the respondent No. 9 is only concerned with PF and pension matter of CMPF member and except that, other dues/benefits of CCL employee will be settled or paid by CCL authority only. 7. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the respondent-Company has no authority or jurisdiction to withhold the payment of the admissible retirement benefits and the legal dues payable to the petitioner without any valid reason and in absence of any such adverse order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent-Company in not sanctioning the payment of pension under the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, Gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Provident Fund amount under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 is illegal and unjustified. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : - (i) in the case of D.D. Tewari (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894 , para 5 (ii) on the judgment dated 22.03.1999 in the case of Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. and another (iii) in the case of State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair reported in (1985) 1 SCC 429 , para 4 (iv) in the case of M/s Champaran Sugar Co. Ltd. v. The Joint Labour Commissioner and appellate authority and others reported in 1986 PLJR 1182 , para 15 and 17 (v) on the order dated 06.07.2010, passed in W.P. (S) No. 1851 of 2010 in the case of Dineshwar Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand and ors. 8. Controverting the stand taken by the learned counsel for the Respondent-CCL, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105 . Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to subsection (6) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 submitted that Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to subsection (6) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 submitted that Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years. Sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is relevant, which reads as under : - "4. Payment of gratuity. (1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years,- (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease: Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement: (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), - (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused; (b) the gratuity payable to an employee [may be wholly or partially forfeited]- (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment." 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to sub-section (3A) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and submitted that if the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify. Sub-section (3A) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 envisages as under : - "7. Sub-section (3A) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 envisages as under : - "7. Determination of the amount of gratuity.- (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground." 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the provisions of Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 and submitted that an employee who was a member of the Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971, immediately before the appointed day and has not attained the age of superannuation shall be deemed to be eligible for pension under the provisions of this Scheme from the appointed day. Learned counsel further submitted that an employee who had not opted for the Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971, but is covered by the provident fund scheme, may opt for pension under the provisions of this scheme within the period of sixty days from the appointed day and he shall be deemed to have become the member of the scheme from the date of his exercising the option in Form PS1. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner has been able to demonstrate the foundational facts and law to warrant interference by this Court: - (i) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.D. Tewari (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894 , has been pleased to hold as under: - 4. ..."1. ..."1. [the] pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment [to the employees]". 5. The said legal principle laid down by this Court still holds good insofar as awarding the interest on the delayed payments to the appellant is concerned. This aspect of the matter was adverted to in the judgment of the learned Single Judge without assigning any reason for not awarding the interest as claimed by the appellant. That is why that portion of the judgment of the learned Single Judge was aggrieved of by the appellant and he had filed LPA before the Division bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court has passed a cryptic order which is impugned in this appeal. It has adverted to the fact that there is no order passed by the learned Single Judge with regard to the payment of interest and the appellant has not raised any plea which was rejected by him, therefore, the Division Bench did not find fault with the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the appeal and the letters patent appeal was dismissed. The correctness of the order is under challenge in this appeal before this Court urging various legal grounds." (ii) In this context, the decision of this Court in the case of Dineshwar Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand and ors, passed in W.P. (S) No. 1851 of 2010, appears to be relevant wherein, it has been observed as under : - "It be stated that though the order of this Court is there, observing therein that the petitioner is entitled to Pension and Gratuity to the extent of 90 % but subsequently, the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra) has been pleased to hold:- Rule 43 (a) and 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, there is no power for the Government to withhold gratuity and pension during the pendency of the departmental or criminal proceeding. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra) has been pleased to hold:- Rule 43 (a) and 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, there is no power for the Government to withhold gratuity and pension during the pendency of the departmental or criminal proceeding. It does not give any power to withhold leave encashment at any stage either prior to the proceeding or after conclusion of the proceeding." 12. In view of the aforesaid facts, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court and after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to admissible retirement dues, 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 with up-to-date statutory interest. 13. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to make payment of admissible retirement dues, 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 with up-to-date statutory interest within 16 weeks from today. 14. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.