O R D E R

This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.33127 of 2017 for the following prayer:-

“for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to recover the gratuity amount already paid to the petitioner in the cadre of tradesman and to credit the same in the gratuity account in the present cadre and to confer the consequential benefits in the light of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1059 of 2001, dated 27.01.2004 and in terms of Rule 36(2) and (3) of the Common Service Rule by considering the representation of the petitioner including the one dated 20.11.2017.”

2. The said W.P.No.33127 of 2017 was disposed by this Court by an order dated 19.12.2017 following decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in K.Rajendran and Others Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited represented by its Managing Director, Madurai and Others, in W.A.(MD) Nos.383 to 457 of 2015 dated 12.6.2015.

3. The Court in W.P.No.33127 of 2017 directed the respondents to settle the entire terminal benefits due and payable to the petitioners through twelve equal monthly instalments carrying interest of 6% p.a and the instalments should commence from January, 2018, and each of the instalments should be paid on or before 7th of each month. In case of any delay in the payment of the instalments, the interest payable would become 18% p.a. for the delayed period apart from any other remedy which may be available to the petitioners for such non-payment of the instalments.

4. The prayer in the present writ petition reads also identically and is reproduced below:-

“for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to recover the gratuity amount already paid to the petitioner in the cadre of tradesman and to credit the same in the gratuity account in the present cadre and to confer the consequential benefits in the light of the Rule 37(2) of the Common Service Rule and orders passed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.A.No.1014 of

2018 dated 29.07.2019.”

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents partly complied with the order of this Court dated 19.12.2017 in W.P.No.33127 of 2017 but has not reckoned services of the petitioner in his capacity as a Helper and an Assistant Tradesman and a Tradesman between 01.03.1982 to 24.06.1995.

6. He submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Helper and later was servicing as an Assistant Tradesman and a Tradesman between 01.03.1982 and 24.06.1995 which were pensionable services and therefore the respondents ought to have reckoned the same for the purpose of computing pension to the petitioner. The petitioner has retired from his service on 30.04.2013 and is thus receiving a lesser pension.

7. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to a recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1014 of 2018 filed by another colleague of the petitioner against an order dated 02.02.2018 passed in W.P.No.2273 of 2018.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of this Court has held that the resignation by the appellant therein was only for the purpose of taking up new employment under the same corporation since the corporation was subsequently taken over by the State Express Transport Corporation, it was a case of a merger that the earlier service rendered by the appellant therein would be counted for the purpose of granting pension.

9. He submits that in the aforesaid case, the Court directed the appellant therein to refund the gratuity amount with interest at 6% per annum and also directed the respondents to receive the same with interest and thereafter count the earlier services rendered by the appellant therein in the post of Helper (Fitter) for the purpose of other benefits including pension. The learned counsel for the petitioner the