JUDGMENT : Heard counsels for the parties. 2. The Present writ petition has been filed for release of C.M.P.F. dues, gratuity amount and family pension. 3. From the pleading, it appears that the father of the petitioner, who was an employee under the respondents, had died in harness on 07.09.1991 and mother of petitioner had also died on 08.06.1992 as disclosed by the petitioner himself. The petitioner has been given compassionate appointment on 08.02.1993. Thus, the claim of the petitioner has become due in the year 1991-92, but the present writ petition has been filed on 12.09.2014 . 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent-CCL. Para 8, 9 and 10 are relevant which are quoted here-in-below:- “8. That it is stated it is a practice of the respondents-Company to settle the death-cum-retiral dues immediately on death of the employee and latest before providing employment on compassionate ground. 9. That it is stated that as on date, there is no record available in the office of the respondents-Company showing any pending claim against the services of the deceased-father of the writ petitioner. 10. That it is stated that more than 25 years have lapsed since the death of father of the writ petitioner. Since the writ petition has been filed after lapse of more than two decades since the death of his father, same is liable to be dismissed on this count itself as it is not possible to ascertain the details of disbursement of such dues after lapse of such long period.” 5. Thus stand has been taken that the present claim has become stale due to lapse of time. The petitioner was aware that after a certain period records will be traceless. 6. CMPF Authorities had filed counter affidavit. Para 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit are relevant which is quoted here-in-below:- “5. That the opposite party humbly submits that the aforesaid case it is stated that Refund claim of the above deceased member has already been settled for Rs. 6. CMPF Authorities had filed counter affidavit. Para 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit are relevant which is quoted here-in-below:- “5. That the opposite party humbly submits that the aforesaid case it is stated that Refund claim of the above deceased member has already been settled for Rs. 5,58,417/- under para 64(iii) of CMPF Scheme, 1948, as no nomination subsist, On perusal of Schedule “C” forwarded by the colliery management, i.e. the list of surviving family member, contains the name two minor son Dasan and Taman as on the date of death on 17.09.1991 of the member is payable to the holder of Succession Certificate, the share of minor sons and daughters who were alive on the date of death of L/Jagdish, CMPF A/c No. D/387100. 6. That it is humbly stated that the amount of PF will be released in two shares for Rs. 279209/- and Rs. 279208/- as and when the claim will be received from the management along with the succession certificates obtained from the Competent Court in the matter of Estate of legal heirs of both two sons L/Dasan and L/Taman both s/o L/Jagdish, respectively as both sons are dead after the death of the member i.e. L/Jagdish. In this Connection a letter has already been issued to the Colliery management.” 7. Thus, it has been stated that as per nomination, the petitioner is entitled only for one third share. It has been submitted that the CMPF Authorities are ready to release the amount if the claim is forwarded by the CCL Authorities. If the claim is forwarded only in the name of one of the nominee then he can get only his share. For getting the entire CMPF amount succession is required. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has disputed the nomination itself. It has been submitted that the petitioner is only son of his father. Thus there is a disputed question. 9. In view of above dispute, the petitioner is given liberty to produce succession certificate. If any succession certificate is produced, the CMPF Authorities are directed to act and release the amount. 10. So far as other dues regarding the pension is concerned, since the claim has been raised after 23 years and as such the same cannot be considered. Even documents are not available with the respondents. If any succession certificate is produced, the CMPF Authorities are directed to act and release the amount. 10. So far as other dues regarding the pension is concerned, since the claim has been raised after 23 years and as such the same cannot be considered. Even documents are not available with the respondents. So far as pension and gratuity is concerned, the claim is not tenable as the matter has been raised after 23 years. 11. It is admitted position that the father of the petitioner has died in the year 1991. The date of death of mother is disputed. As per the petitioner she had died in the year 1993. As per CMPF she had predeceased the father of the petitioner. This factual aspect cannot be decided by this Court. 12. So far as gratuity amount is concerned. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the CCL Authorities that no record is available regarding dues of gratuity amount. The time period of 23 years enough to change the entire complexion of the office as well as status of the family. The gratuity released 23 years ago, could have been distributed among the family members as per the inheritance. Now what is position of family is not clear before this Court. 13. Be as it may, delay of 23 years period is enough to reject the claim of the petitioner treating it as a stale claim. 14. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition is, hereby, disposed of.