JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner seeks for a mandamus to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service as Sericulture worker till the completion of 60 years as per FR 56(i). 2. Mr. V. Pandi, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. 3. Since the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court passed in respect of similar matters, in favour of the petitioner, the writ petition itself is taken for final disposal. 4. The case of the petitioner is that she joined the Department of the respondents as Sericulture worker in 1980 and she was appointed on regular basis through proceedings dated on 28.04.2010 and as per the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules, the retirement age of the petitioner would be 60 years as the Government has invoked Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules for relaxing the condition relating to recruitment through Employment Exchange. However, the respondents orally directed the petitioner to retire from service on completion of 58 years i.e., on 31.03.2015 by placing reliance on a Government letter dated 20.06.2011 wherein, it has been stated that the Sericulture workers do not fall under the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for the relief as stated supra. 5. The issue involved in this case as to whether the age of retirement of the petitioner like persons is 58 years or 60 years. The said issue has already been considered by this Court in very many decisions and I myself passed an order in W.P(MD)No.9941 of 2014 dated 23.06.2014, wherein in paragraphs 5 and 6 it has been held as follows: "5.The very same issue as to whether the age of retirement of the petitioner like persons is 58 years or 60 years has already been considered by this Court on an earlier occasions and the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.14977 of 2011 etc., dated 24.01.2013, found that the petitioner like persons are entitled to have retired at the age of 60 years, after rejecting the claim of the State Government in placing reliance on a Government Letter, dated 20.06.2011. 4. The relevant paragraph No.15 of the above said order is extracted here-under: "Therefore, it is hereby declared that the petitioners are entitled to have retired at the age of 60 years. 4. The relevant paragraph No.15 of the above said order is extracted here-under: "Therefore, it is hereby declared that the petitioners are entitled to have retired at the age of 60 years. The stand taken by the State Government vide Government Letter dated 20.06.2011 that if such a claim is conceded, there is likelihood of similar claims coming from other Section, is only to be rejected. Insofar as an claim is made by similarly placed persons, then the Government will have to consider those claims as per the existing Rules and also as considered in the present cases and their claims cannot be rejected because the petitioners' claim was accepted, especially when their services were regularised and they were drawing pay lesser then the basic service." 5. Subsequently, in several other decisions, this Court has found that the age of retirement is only 60 years for the persons like the petitioner. Accordingly, by following the above said order passed in earlier matters, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service as Sericulture worker till the completion of 60 years. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 6. Following the above said decision, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner, to continue in service as Sericulture worker till the completion of 60 years. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.