JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mrs. Nitu Sinha learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Sahay J.C to A.K Das learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction to the respondents to pay the monthly pension to the petitioner since the date of his retirement under Golden Hand Shake Retirement Scheme till 30.11.1996 and pay the same with pension arrears with interest @ 10% per annum or in alternative to return back the entire 2 % pension contribution during the whole period of service of the petitioner with compound interest @ 10% per annum of the entire deducted amount by the respondents of CCL. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in the services of the respondents, C.CL since the date of his appointment dated 23.12.1960 on the post of Mazdoor and later on promoted to the post of Lamp Room Incharge having CMPF No. D/376956 as it is also evident from the service book issued by the respondent company. It is further stated that the date of the birth of the petitioner as mentioned in the service sheet is 21.2.1942 and after working about 36 years of service he retired on 30.11 1996 under the Golden Hand Shake Retirement Scheme of the Company .It is stated that the petitioner after his retirement submitted his claim for payment of his retiral benefits such as Gratuity, CMPF and pension etc. soon after his retirement. It is stated that the petitioner was paid amount of gratuity and CMPF after his retirement. It is stated that in terms of para 3 of the Coal mines Pension Scheme, pension contribution has been deducted by the respondent Company regularly without any break from the salary of the petitioner towards the pension fund in a separate head in his CMPF account. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner retired from service on 30.11 1996 under Golden Hand Shake Retirement Scheme. It is admitted that prior to his retirement though for certain period certain deduction were made from the salary of the petitioner in contemplation of the new scheme. However, the Coal Mines Pension Scheme finally took shape on 31st March, 1998 and under the said scheme only such employees were considered eligible who retired after coming into force of the pension scheme and such employees opted for the said scheme. However, the Coal Mines Pension Scheme finally took shape on 31st March, 1998 and under the said scheme only such employees were considered eligible who retired after coming into force of the pension scheme and such employees opted for the said scheme. As the petitioner retired under the Golden Hand Shake Retirement Scheme on 30.11.1996, he cannot claim any benefit beyond the provision of the scheme and his claim of pension under the scheme off 1998 is wholly untenable. It is admitted that deduction from the salary of the petitioner @ 2% has already been remitted to the office of the respondent no.6 and as such the petitioner can claim his refund from the office of the respondent no.6 5. In view of the averments made in para-6 of the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that deduction from the salary of the petitioner @ 2% has already been remitted to the office of the respondent no.6 and as such the petitioner can claim his refund from the office of the respondent no.6 , this court directs the petitioner to approach before the respondent no.6 for refund of deduction. The petitioner is retired from service on 30.11 1996 and it is the duty to the concerned respondent to take appropriate steps for refund of the said amount, if the petitioner is not entitled for paying under the new Scheme, the authority has not taken any steps in the case of the person who was working on the post of Mazdoor, thus the simple interest of 6% per annum shall be released in favour of the petitioner along refunded amount. Since the scheme in question has come to the effect on 31st March, 1998 and the petitioner retired in the year 1996 the claim of the petitioner for regular pension is not tenable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that gratuity has already been released in favour of the petitioner which is also stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition. This court expects that concerned respondent shall refund amount in question along with the interest taking into account the age of the petitioner as early as possible preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, With the above observation this writ petition stands disposed of.