JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners have challenged the common order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the General Manager of the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd. When these writ petitions came up on 25.07.2012, Mr.S.Sairaman, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents took notice and they have also filed a common counter-affidavit, dated 17.01.2013, sworn to by the Managing Director of the Corporation, 2. Heard the arguments of Mr.R.Y.George Williams, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Sairaman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The grievances projected by the petitioners are identical. The petitioners were working in various departments of the Corporation, such as Traffic, Technical and Administrative Departments, in various posts. Subsequently, when the respondents started computerising their operations, the petitioners having got certificate in data entry operations, opted to serve as Date Entry Operators, which is not a promotional post of the post held by the petitioners. They gave consent for being considered for the new post and the respondent-Corporation insisted that since it is not a promotional post, they will have to resign from the existing post to accept the post of computer operator. With this condition and such other conditions namely that they will be appointed as a new entrant and they should also remit security deposit and they should be ready to serve in any shift in any branch, the petitioners were appointed as computer operators some where in the year 1986. 4. In the respective appointment orders given to the petitioners, it was clearly stated that they were appointed as a new entrant and they are not eligible to claim benefits of their past service in the new service in which they were appointed and their services prior to the date of entry shall not be counted on any account in the new service. They were also asked to execute a bond agreeing to the condition laid down by the Management and it is not disputed that the petitioners never executed such bond. 5. Subsequent to the petitioners' entry as data entry operators and long thereafter, the petitioners came forward with the plea that their services rendered before their entry as computer operators should be counted for all purposes and in their representation dated 02.03.2011, 25 years after their accepting the post of computer operators, they claimed that their representation should be considered. 5. Subsequent to the petitioners' entry as data entry operators and long thereafter, the petitioners came forward with the plea that their services rendered before their entry as computer operators should be counted for all purposes and in their representation dated 02.03.2011, 25 years after their accepting the post of computer operators, they claimed that their representation should be considered. In the representation, it was contended by them that the resignation given by them is only technical inasmuch as the very next day of their resignation, they have joined the new post and also under Rule 16 (e) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules, if the post is taken with proper permission, another appointment similar to that of Government rules, the resignation need not be held to be forfeiture of their past service. However, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the impugned order, it was stated that when they were appointed as computer operators, it was specifically stated that they were treated as a new entrant and their past services will not be counted and they should also serve in any shift in any branch and they also agreed to serve for a minimum period of five years and they will not seek for an appointment to the post of clerical cadre and they will also be kept as probationers in the new post for a period of two years. Therefore, 22 years after accepting such appointment, asking for pay protection and the past service to be counted cannot be accepted. The petitioners were working under the miscellaneous working group and they were given this new appointment with a new service number and a new service register has also been opened and no objection has been raised at that point of time. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, apart from reiterating these facts, it was stated that a similar prayer made by similarly placed persons were rejected by this Court by a common order dated 20.03.2012 in W.P.Nos.11642, 14514 of 2009, 12024 and 12025 of 2010. In that case, the similarly placed persons sought for a direction to consider their technical resignation and count the past service, was rejected by Justice B.Rajendran. In that case, the similarly placed persons sought for a direction to consider their technical resignation and count the past service, was rejected by Justice B.Rajendran. In the order dated 20.03.2012, in paragraph Nos.16 and 17, it has been held as follows:- "16.) It is evident from Rule 37 (iv) of the Service Rules that for all other purposes such as review, promotion, increment, seniority, etc., the petitioners shall be treated as new entrant inasmuch as they have relinquished all the rights in respect of the old post. After having relinquished their right, if any, in the past services rendered by them, it is not open to them to file the present writ petitions. 17.) In fact, the respondent/Corporation also produced the Minutes of the 190th Board Meeting of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Limited held on 28th Sept. 2004 in which item No.13 relates to the claim made by the petitioners to reconsider and decide on their request for continuity of service and other facilities rendered by them in the past service. A resolution was passed on 28.09.2004 stating that the Board, after detailed discussion, resolved not to consider the request." 7. Mr.George Williams, however stated that in that case, two distinguished features are found, viz., in that case, the petitioners have signed a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and it is not the case of the present petitioners and in that case, the petitioners have accepted gratuity for the past period and settled their account and therefore, it will be a distinguished feature and hence, that decision will not have any bearing on the case on hand. On the other hand, apart from the settlement issue in the passages quoted above, this Court also referred to the service rule, viz., Rule 37 (iv), which enables the Corporation to refuse to consider the past service in terms of the said rule. 8. On the other hand, apart from the settlement issue in the passages quoted above, this Court also referred to the service rule, viz., Rule 37 (iv), which enables the Corporation to refuse to consider the past service in terms of the said rule. 8. Therefore, notwithstanding that the petitioners have not signed any settlement, but as they themselves have agreed in the affidavit for having accepted the conditions and were also clearly informed by the order of appointment that their past services will not be counted and apart from this, they have raised the issue about continuity of service only after a period of 2 = decades, this Court cannot allow the prayer of the petitioners thereby making two classes of workmen in the same Corporation, one covered by the order passed by this Court dated 20.03.2012 and whose claims were negatived and the present petitioners trying to have their past service counted for all purposes. The distinction made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners do not merit any acceptance, as the case on hand is also squarely covered by the directions made by this Court in the order dated 20.03.2012. 9. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to accept the stand of the petitioners besides they are also guilty of delay and laches. In the said circumstances, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions also stand dismissed.