ORDER : (S.K. Mishra, J.) 1. By filing this intra court appeal, the Assistant Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Office, Deoghar in W.P. (S) No. 2511 of 2019 has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 29.06.2021, whereby, while the learned Single Judge observed that the Court has not entered into the merits of the case since already a specific direction was given by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court to consider the case of the writ petitioner, however, in the same breadth, the learned Single Judge held that the Court reiterates the same view and further observes that it is expected from the Assistant Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, that all effective steps shall be taken to ensure that the petitioner is granted pension, as pension is not compassion, but it is the right of the employee to get the same in accordance with law. 2. In spite of sufficiency of service on private respondent no.1, vide order dated 13.09.2022, nobody is appearing for respondent no. 1. 3. The writ application, in which the impugned order passed in the second journey of the petitioner of this Court, he had approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 988 of 2018 and after hearing the parties, the Court directed respondent no. 6 i.e. the present appellant-the Assistant Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Office, to examine the prayer of the writ petitioner in accordance with law and take a decision thereon, subject to the writ petitioner complying to the undertaking given by him within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 4. However, when the representation of the petitioner was rejected, he approached this Court and again the order impugned was passed by this Court. The appellant is aggrieved by the observation made by the learned Single Judge that the Assistant Commissioner shall take all effective steps to ensure that the petitioner is granted pension and then there is nothing to be decided on merit. 5. Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that although respondent no. The appellant is aggrieved by the observation made by the learned Single Judge that the Assistant Commissioner shall take all effective steps to ensure that the petitioner is granted pension and then there is nothing to be decided on merit. 5. Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that although respondent no. 1-writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was not a member of the Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 and never applied for the membership of both the Schemes, the contributions were deducted from his salary and the moneys that was deducted from the salary was refunded to him along with interest. 6. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part. The appeal is allowed in part. The expression “This Court reiterates the same view and it is expected from the Assistant Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund that all effective steps shall be taken to ensure that the petitioner is granted pension, as pension is not compassion, but it is the right of the employee to get the same in accordance with law.” is deleted from the impugned order. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.