Judgment :- Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the petitioner the sum of Rs.17,262/- being the difference in gratuity after calculation of the gratuity or D.C.R.G. in accordance to the calculation provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with interest from the date the same has become due. 2. Though the writ petition has been filed for the relief as above, learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that a similar issue was considered by this Court and an order has been passed in W.P.(MD)No.33704 of 2002 dated 4.3.2011. In that case the very same respondents were directed to calculate the gratuity of the petitioner therein in terms of the calculation provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with statutory interest. The operative portion of the decision reads as follows:- “43. In view of the above categorical pronouncement of law on this point, the petitioner is entitled to gratuity. Though the petitioner has not challenged the orders passed by the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, considering the beneficial legislation and the judgments of the Courts, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has been denied of the benefit of gratuity under the Act, which is more beneficial than the one granted under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and therefore, entitled to seek for a Mandamus. When mandamus can be issued, it is useful to refer to a few decisions of the Apex Court, (i) In the decision reported in (1996) 9 SCC 309 (State of U.P. and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors.) in paragraph 10, the Apex court held as follows: 10..... Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition.... (ii) In the decision reported in (2004)2 SCC 150 (Union of India v. S.B. Vohra) the Supreme Court considered the said issue and held that for issuing a writ of mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming, must establish his legal right in himself. (ii) In the decision reported in (2004)2 SCC 150 (Union of India v. S.B. Vohra) the Supreme Court considered the said issue and held that for issuing a writ of mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming, must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a writ of mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so. (iii) In the decision reported in (2008)2 SCC 280 (Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal (Jain) in paragraphs 11 and 12 the Supreme Court held thus, 11. The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferries, Jr.: Note 187. - Mandamus at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed. Note 192. - Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. Note 196. - Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well-settled principles which have been established by the courts. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. Note 196. - Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well-settled principles which have been established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned-an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequence which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances. Note 206. - .... The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the duty is clearly discretionary and the party upon which the duty rests has exercised his discretion reasonably and within his jurisdiction, that is, upon facts sufficient to support his action. 12. These very principles have been adopted in our country. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v.Sipathi Singh after referring to the earlier decisions in Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M.Shah, Rai Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) v.Nalanda College and Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar this Court observed as follows in para 15 of the Reports (SCC) : (Sipahi Singh case, SCC pp. 152-53) 15..... There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance... In the instant case, it has not been shown by respondent 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on Respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that Respondent 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same. Therefore, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities....” 44. Hence, the respondents are directed to calculate the gratuity of the petitioner, in accordance with the calculation provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and pay him the difference in gratuity, with statutory interest, as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, from the date of entitlement. 45. In the result, the writ Petition is allowed. No costs.” 3. In view of the above reasoning to which I agree, the respondents are directed to calculate the gratuity of the petitioner, in accordance with the calculation provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and pay him the difference in gratuity, with statutory interest, as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, from the date of entitlement. This Writ Petition is allowed as above. No costs.