Per Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of order dated 16.06.2004, by which, the services of the husband of the petitioner has been dismissed and further prayer has been made for quashing orders dated 21.06.2012 and 28.07.2012 passed by the appellate authority. 2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that husband of the petitioner was a Miner Loader in Kooridih Colliery, Dhanbad. While continuing as such, the husband of the petitioner become victim of Tuberculosis, on account of which, he was not in a position to work underground colliery, hence, he requested the respondents-authorities to allow him to perform on surface work instead of underground work, but, his request was never paid any heed. Resultantly, from 31.03.2002, the husband of the petitioner was not in a position to move on account of respiratory problem and on 15.10.2003 after getting recovery from the illness, when the husband of the petitioner made a request to the authorities to allow him to discharge his duties, he was not allowed and charge-sheet dated 27.07.2002 was served upon him in contemplation of departmental proceeding, which led to dismissal of services. Being aggrieved the petitioner moved this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 6096 of 2007, which was withdrawn vide order dated 03.03.2008 with liberty to prefer appeal. Thereafter, appeal was preferred, but, when no order was passed on appeal, the husband of the petitioner again moved this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 2356 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.07.2011 directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months. However, pending disposal of the appeal, the husband of the petitioner died on 20.08.2011. Thereafter, vide two different orders dated 21.06.2012 and 28.07.2012, the appellate authority disposed of the appeal. 3. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the respondents justifying the impugned order of dismissal as well as order passed by the appellate authority, submits that on the ground of absenting from duties without proper authorization, which stood established in domestic enquiry, a fair departmental proceeding was initiated against the deceased-employee, which led to dismissal of the deceased-employee. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even the Apex Medical Board declared that the petitioner is fit for his original job on 11.07.2003, hence, his absence from duty was declared to be not justified. 4. However, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that so far as payment of lawful post retiral benefits as gratuity, provident fund and pension under C.M.P.F Scheme, provided the husband of the petitioner is a member of the Scheme, is concerned if the petitioner approaches, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after some arguments, submits that if the legally admissible post retiral benefits is extended to the petitioner, the grievances of the petitioner shall be redressed. 6. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents-authorities within a period of four weeks and if the petitioner approaches, the respondents-authorities, shall pay the admissible post retiral dues within a period of two months from the date of approach made by the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.