JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for a direction upon the respondent authorities to return the amount of 1.16% + 1.16% of Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971, 2% pension contribution and one special increment which was deducted for payment of pension from the salary of the deceased employee-Smt. Bashwa Devi (mother of the petitioner) who died in harness. 3. The facts relevant for disposal of the instant writ application is that one Bashwa Devi wife of Late Banbari Bedia was employee as a Piece Rated Worker in Sirka Colliery of CCL having CMPF A/C No.RMG/48-2652. Her date of appointment was 15.02.1995 and she died during her service period on 30.03.2009 after rendering 14 years of service. At this stage it is pertinent to mention here that as per the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Coal Company, the deceased employee was automatically covered under the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 (in short CMPS 1998). The case of the petitioner is that upon death of the employee-Bashwa Devi, her son (petitioner herein) applied for payment of Children Pension under CMPS, 1998. The pension claim was processed as per the available age records of the petitioner with the respondent-Coal Company on the basis of authentication Forms PS-3 & PS4 of CMPS, 1998 and also a School Certificate showing his age to be 21 years at the time of death of his mother in 2009. On the basis of these documents the petitioner was found eligible for children pension and for that a demand notice of Rs.1,110/- being shortfall amount of 2% pension contribution of the member under the CMPS, 1998 was issued which has also been deposited by this petitioner; the cash receipt has been enclosed with the counter affidavit. However, when the said pension claim papers reached the Office of Respondent No.8-CMPF it was found that as per CMPF declaration Form “A” of the deceased member; the petitioner was 29 years of age at the time of death of his mother and therefore the applicant having crossed the eligible age of 25 years was not found entitled for Children Pension under CMPS-1998 and his case was rejected. Hence, the petitioner had filed the instant writ application for refund of pension contribution which was deducted from the salary of the deceased employee along with the increments and also Rs.1110/-deposited amount by him with interest. 4. Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in not refunding the deducted amount towards pension contribution and one special annual increment from 30.03.2009 as well as the deposited amount of Rs.1110/-by this petitioner is not justified, inasmuch as, when it has been admitted by the respondents that petitioner is not entitled for Children Pension then the deducted amount from his mother’s salary towards pension contribution and one increment should be refunded to him as per Rule 17 of CMPS-1998. 5. Mr. D.K.Chakraverty, learned counsel for the respondent-Coal Company submits that when the claim papers was sent by the Coal Company to the Regional Commissioner Office of CMPF; they received a letter dated 20.12.2012 wherein it was informed that the case of the this petitioner has been rejected because upon verification of records it was found that the petitioner was aged about 29 years at the time of death of the member as per declaration Form “A” submitted by the member herself and no children pension can be given to a male adult who crossed 25 years of age. He further submits that this factual aspect has never been controverted by this petitioner rather after knowing the fact that he is not entitled for Children Pension; he demanded for refund of employee’s contribution along with increment etc. which is not justified and his entire claim for refund is non-est in the eye of law. 6. Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.8-CMPF referred Clause 13(1) of CMPS-1998 and submits that as per the scheme, two eldest sons or unmarried daughters are entitled to get pension from the date of death of a member, till they attain the age of twenty five years or in the case of unmarried daughter till the date of her marriage. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.8-CMPF referred Clause 13(1) of CMPS-1998 and submits that as per the scheme, two eldest sons or unmarried daughters are entitled to get pension from the date of death of a member, till they attain the age of twenty five years or in the case of unmarried daughter till the date of her marriage. He further submits that as per the scheme of CMPS-1998 Children Pension will not allowed if the recipient crossed the age of 25 years and that is the reason that the claim of the petitioner for Children Pension was rejected as it was found from declaration Form “A” duly filled by the deceased employee that at the time of death of the deceased employee, the petitioner was 29 years of age. He further submits that the claim of refund of deducted amount towards pension scheme is not maintainable in view of the fact that the deduction of pension contribution is mandatory as per CMPS-98 and as under the scheme there is no provision for refund of the pension contribution even if the member dies during the service and his/her children are not eligible for Children Pension, claim of the petitioner is not justified. Deduction of pension contribution cannot to be considered as an agreement between CMPF and its member. As such the claim of the petitioner is illegal. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed in the respective affidavits and the averments made therein, it appears that this petitioner filed an application after the death of his mother for Children Pension claiming himself to be below 25 years and submitted authentication Form P.S-3 & P.S.4 and also a School Certificate of class VIII. Pursuant thereto; it was found that the petitioner was only 21 years of age at the time of death of member-employee and on this basis the respondent Coal Company even issued a demand notice for payment of Rs.1110/-being shortfall of 2% pension contribution of the member under CMPS-1998 and thereafter, the petitioner deposited the same. The record further transpires that when the completed pension claim application under CMPS-1998 was examined at the end of Regional Commissioner Office; it was found that the petitioner had crossed the age of 25 years at the time of death of her mother as such he was not found entitled for Children Pension. The record further transpires that when the completed pension claim application under CMPS-1998 was examined at the end of Regional Commissioner Office; it was found that the petitioner had crossed the age of 25 years at the time of death of her mother as such he was not found entitled for Children Pension. This determination of age was arrived and considered to be accurate on the basis of CMPF declaration Form “A” of the deceased member and this documents has never been denied by the petitioner. At this stage it is worthwhile to mention that this application has not been filed for Children Pension; rather the petitioner is aggrieved by non-refunding of pension contribution which was deducted from the salary of the deceased employee while she was in service. Petitioner is also aggrieved with the action of the respondents that the respondent Coal Company has even issued a demand notice for payment of Rs.1110/-being shortfall of deducted amount. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon Clause-17 of CMPS-1998 and submits that as per the Clause, the petitioner is entitled for refund of the pension contribution as the same was deducted from her mother’s salary. For better appreciation of the case Clause-13(1) & Clause-17 of CMPS-98 is to be examined and the same are quoted herein below:- “13(1). After the death of an employee from the date following the date of his/her death along with surviving wife/husband, two of the eldest sons or unmarried daughters, as the case ‘may be, till they attain the age of twenty five years or in the case of unmarried daughter till the date of her marriage, whichever is earlier, shall be entitled to children pension.” “17. Where an employee dies in service or after Superannuation” or date of his retirement and certain amounts accrued under the provisions of this Scheme have not been paid, such amounts shall be paid in equal share to be surviving widow/widower or in case there is no widow/widower, to surviving children in equal share, or where there is no widow/widower and children, to the nomine. After going through the aforesaid clauses it clearly transpires that as per the scheme; after the death of any employee who is covered under the CMPS’1998; two of the eldest sons shall be entitled to children pension till they attain the age of twenty five years or in the case of unmarried daughter till the date of her marriage, whichever is earlier, shall be entitled to children pension. Further, clause-17 clearly stipulates that where an employee dies in service or after superannuation and if certain amounts accrues under the provisions of this Scheme have not been paid; such amounts shall be paid in equal share. Thus, the scheme is very clear that if any amount accrues under the provisions of the scheme; the same shall be paid and in the instant case since the petitioner has crossed the age of 25; his case was rejected. Further, there is no provision for refund of the deducted amount in the scheme; thus clause-17 will not help the petitioner. It is not a case that deduction was made arbitrarily by the respondent and the member was not entitled for pension. As aforesaid, the member had died after serving 14 years of service as such as per CMPS-98 she was entitled for pension. It is also not a case of widow/widower pension where the scheme itself says that the widow/widower will get family pension till her/his life time. But in a case of children pension, there is a rider in the scheme itself that in case of son they should not cross the age of 25 years for entitlement of children pension and if it is a case of daughter she would not be entitled after marriage. At this stage it is pertinent to mention here that deduction of 2% salary for pension contribution from any coal miners cannot be equated as an agreement and the deduction is mainly for the purpose of strengthening the corpus fund from where every coal miners are receiving pension. 9. In the instant case, the deducted amount was for the purpose of payment of pension to the member and the petitioner since not entitled for any children pension being over age; the deducted amount cannot be considered as accrued amount as per the scheme. At best, the petitioner is entitled only for the demanded amount i.e. Rs.1110/-which was demanded and paid/deposited by him. At best, the petitioner is entitled only for the demanded amount i.e. Rs.1110/-which was demanded and paid/deposited by him. He cannot have any right on her mother’s contribution because as aforesaid the deducted amount was not as per any agreement for refund rather it has been deducted as per the scheme for maintaining a corpus fund for pension. 10. For illustration about the object of contribution under the scheme; one can see that some employees/members dies only after getting 2 or 5 years of pension; however there are many employees who receives pension for more than 20-30 years i.e. till their death. So there is no co-relation between different employees. As per the scheme, the employees/members are entitled for pension till the age of his death; for family pension till the widow/widower life time and for children pension till the male children does not cross 25 years and female child is not married. Therefore the contributed amount in no case can be construed as an agreement for refund of amount in case of nonpayment of pension. 11. Since there is no provision in the entire scheme for refund of any amount deducted from the salary of the members to the Children if they are not otherwise entitled for pension; the petitioner is not entitled for any refund of amount. At best he would be entitled for the amount what he has paid himself; As such, the claim of the petitioner for refund of pension contribution along with increment etc. has no legs to stands in the eye of law and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. However the petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned respondent authorities for refund of demanded amount by the coal company to the tune of Rs.1110/-only and if any such representation for refund is made; the same shall be verified and be refunded to this petitioner without any interest. 12. In view of the aforesaid findings, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. Consequently, the instant writ application stands dismissed, however no order as to cost.