ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus for the following relief: “… i) declare the petitioner is entitled to interest on retirement benefits including gratuity and CPS amount from the date of retirement; ii) declare the action of Respondents in not releasing the retirement CMP amount is illegal and arbitrary; iii) consequently direct the respondents to release CPF amount and interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits from the date of retirement; iv) pass such order or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a. The petitioner was appointed as Typist in the respondent-Food Corporation of India, through an appointment order dated 11.10.1971 and thereafter, promoted as Assistant Grade-III and Assistant Grade-II (General) on 18.05.1976 and 07.10.1976 respectively. b. While he was working as Assistant Grade-II (General), a show cause notice dated 26.02.1988 was issued by the respondent No.2 referring to a report dated 13.01.1988 of the Director (Tribal Welfare) that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Kapu (ST) and he is a general candidate and directed him to give an explanation as to why the benefit derived by the petitioner consequent to appointment should not be revoked. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he never claimed any benefit under ST candidate and even he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-IIII (Gen) in 1977 in general category, and he did not claim as an ST candidate. c. The respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 19.8.1988 to the Zonal Manager informing that his name should be deleted from the ST category. Even in the seniority list, the name of the petitioner was shown in general candidate in the cadre of Assistant Grade-II (General). His services were terminated, vide termination order dated 03.03.2000. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed W.P. No.3967 of 2000, wherein this court by order dated 10.03.2010 in WPMP No.5241 of 2010 granted interim suspension of the proceedings dated 03.03.2000. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated into service and was promoted as Assistant Grade-I as General candidate. d. It is stated that after retirement, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents to release the retiral benefits to which he is entitled to. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated into service and was promoted as Assistant Grade-I as General candidate. d. It is stated that after retirement, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents to release the retiral benefits to which he is entitled to. In the meantime, when the writ petition came up for hearing, it is represented by both the counsel that the cause of the W.P. does not survive as the writ petitioner retired from service. However, the said W.P. was disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to give a representation to the competent authority for release of his retiral benefits and as and when such a representation is given, the competent authority may consider and dispose of the same within three months thereafter. On his representation, the respondent vide letter dated 30.11.2009 rejected his claim for retiral benefits. e. The petitioner filed a review in W.P.M.P. No.38100 of 2009 in WP No.3967 of 2000 to recall the Order dated 24.06.2009, which was allowed on 15.2.2013. The petitioner also filed WP No.20685 of 2010 challenging the order dated 30.11.2009 seeking a direction to release the retiral benefits duly reckoning his service from 20.10.1971 to 30.06.2008 for terminal benefits and all attendant benefits for the service rendered in the corporation. Vide common order dated 07.06.2013 allowed WP Nos.3967 of 2000 and 20685 of 2010. Questioning the same, WA Nos.1801 of 2013 and 1691 of 2013 were filed by the petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court, by interim order directed the respondents to implement the orders of the learned single Judge and release the retiral benefits within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. Thereafter, the Writ Appeals were disposed of on 03.12.2014 directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits within four weeks from the date of the order. f. It is stated that the petitioner was paid CPF amount of Rs.6,71,000/- on 30.06.2008 and the remaining 10% of CPF amount of Rs.7,65,016/- on 24.02.2015. The petitioner is entitled to an amount of RS.14,36,016/-. 90% of the said amount would be Rs.12,92,414/-. He is entitled to interest on the retiral benefits from 2008-2015 and also the remaining balance amount plus interest till date. The petitioner is entitled to an amount of RS.14,36,016/-. 90% of the said amount would be Rs.12,92,414/-. He is entitled to interest on the retiral benefits from 2008-2015 and also the remaining balance amount plus interest till date. The petitioner issued a legal notice dated 04.11.2015 was issued and as per the directions of the Regional Office, FCI, Hyderabad, vide e-mail dated 23.02.2015 released 10% of CPF, gratuity EL/ HAPL/UAJT/wage revision arrears payment has been released to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to interest as per Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. g. Hence W.P. 3. Averments in the counter affidavit are; a. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying all the material allegations made by the petitioner and putting him to strict proof of the same. It is stated that as per the Regional employment Officer, Visakhapantam, vide letter dated 27.04.1970 he has communicated a list of candidates to the Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, wherein, the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No.1 and mentioned as Scheduled Tribe candidate. As per the minutes of the Regional Appointment Committee, four candidates who obtained marks more than 38 were appointed on merit, whereas, the petitioner herein obtained 30 marks and was appointed as Typist against the reserved vacancy. After appointment, the petitioner got promotions in reserved vacancy for promotion only. b. It is stated that while working as Assistant Grade-II (G), petitioner was terminated from service by the corporation by letter dated 03.03.2000 of the Regional office, Food Corporation of India, Hyderabad due to bogus community certificate claiming that he belongs to scheduled tribes category (Konda Kapu). A complaint was lodged by the FCI SC/ST Employee’s Welfare Association, AP Region, New Delhi that the petitioner has submitted a bogus certificate, and the matter was referred to the Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for verifying the community status, in turn, it was proved that the petitioner belongs to ‘TirupuKapu” but not ‘KondaKapu’. c. As per the directions of this Court, the petitioner made a representation dated 01.07.2009 and the same was rejected by the corporation by speaking order dated 30.11.2009. c. As per the directions of this Court, the petitioner made a representation dated 01.07.2009 and the same was rejected by the corporation by speaking order dated 30.11.2009. It is stated that the respondent corporation paid an amount of Rs.5,91,331/- on 08.05.2015; E.L.Encashment of Rs.1,10,842/- on 10.08.2015, wage revision arrears of Rs.1,24,488/- on 22.03.2016, retirement memento fund of Rs.5,000/- on 22.03.2016, contributory pension fund of Rs.14,36,016/- on 24.02.2015 to the petitioner. d. It is also stated that an amount of Rs.7,65,016/- includes 10% of CPF as on 2003-04 and subsequent contributions till 2008 and interest till the date of final order. Therefore, the petitioner’s contention of reverse calculating 90% of CPF balance is not correct. Reliance was placed on the decision in R.Vishwanath Pillai v. State of Kerala, 2004(2) SCC 105 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the validity of appointment procured against the reserved post producing false caste certificate and held that such appointment is void and non-est in the eye of law and that it is applicable to the case of the petitioner herein. Therefore, the petitioner’s case was rejected by the respondent corporation. 4. Heard Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Dantu Srinivas, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2-Corporation and Sri O.Uday Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3-corporation and perused the material on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner initially was appointed as Typist in Food Corporation of India vide order dated 11.10.1971. While so, in the year 1988, a show cause notice was issued to him referring to the report from the Director Tribal welfare that he does not belong to ‘KondaKapu’ (ST) but he is a general candidate. He was asked to explain why he should not be revoked. The petitioner was terminated from service on 3.3.2000 on the said allegation. He preferred W.P.No.3967 of 2000, wherein, an interim order was passed suspending the proceedings issued for his termination. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Grade-I as a General Candidate and retired from service on attaining superannuation on 30.06.2008. W.P.No.3967 of 2000 was disposed of on 24.6.2009 since the cause of action does not survive as he retired from service. Thereafter, he approached the authority for release of his retirement benefits which was rejected. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Grade-I as a General Candidate and retired from service on attaining superannuation on 30.06.2008. W.P.No.3967 of 2000 was disposed of on 24.6.2009 since the cause of action does not survive as he retired from service. Thereafter, he approached the authority for release of his retirement benefits which was rejected. The petitioner filed a review W.P.M.P.No.38100 of 2009 in WP No.3967 of 2000 which was allowed on 15.2.2013. Apart from that, he also filed another WP No.20685 of 2010 challenging the order dated 30.11.2009, rejection of the retirement benefits, seeking a direction to release his retirement benefits duly reckoning his service from 20.10.1971 to 30.06.2008. A common order dated 07.06.2013 has been passed in W.P.Nos.3967 of 2000 and 20685 of 2010. Aggrieved thereby, respondents preferred W.A.Nos.1801 of 2013 and 1691 of 2013 wherein, a common order has been passed directing the respondents to implement the order of the learned single Judge. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was paid CPF amount of Rs.6,71,000/- on 30.06.2008 and remaining 10% amount of Rs.7,65,016/- on 24.2.2015. The petitioner got issued a legal notice on 4.11.2015. In response to the said notice, the respondents have replied that as per the directions of the Regional Office, FCI, Hyderabad, through e-mail dated 23.02.2015 they have released 10% of CPF gratuity. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the Central Government had stipulated the payment of 10% interest to the employee in case, the gratuity is not paid within the stipulated time. Though the petitioner is entitled to the retirement benefits on 2008, he was not paid as such he is entitled to interest on retirement benefits from 2008 to 2015 and also the remaining balance amount plus interest till the date of payment. Therefore, the inaction on the part of the respondents in not releasing the amounts and not paying the interest on retiral benefits is illegal and unjust. 7. Learned counsel further submits that as per Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the employee is entitled to have interest at 10% per annum for the delayed payment of gratuity, if the authorities failed to pay the amount of gratuity within the prescribed time. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is entitled for interest at 10% per annum for delayed payment of gratuity due to him. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is entitled for interest at 10% per annum for delayed payment of gratuity due to him. Section 7(Q) of the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund Act and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1972, is clear that the employer is liable to pay simple interest at 12% p.a. from the date on which the amount has become so due till the date of his actual payment. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner has been suffered for no fault on his part and has been deprived of his claim of retired benefits for eight years. As such, he is entitled to have prevailing rate of interest on the delayed payment. 8. Learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation would submit that there was no prayer seeking interest in the earlier writ petitions filed by the individual and because of the controversy relating to the community as claimed by the petitioner, there is a delay in payment of the amount and this delay is not deliberate, because the matter is pending before the Court. It is also pointed out that there was no direction for payment of interest in the earlier orders. The respondents have obliged the interim order passed in the W.A. dated 23.12.2015 directing the respondents to pay the amount within four weeks and that order was well complied and the question of payment of interest does not arise. 9. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that payment of interest for the late release of the gratuity is a statutory one and that the Court has not waived the right of the petitioner on the point of interest. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has joined in the department of Food Corporation as Typist in the year 1971 and later he was promoted as Grade-III and Grade-II Assistant. The petitioner was terminated from service on the point that he does not belong to ‘Konda Kapu’ community. But he is a general candidate. His termination was stopped by the interim order of the suspension of the proceedings dated 03.03.2000 vide order dated 10.03.2010 in WPMP No.5241 of 2010 in WP No.3967 of 2000. The petitioner ultimately retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Later the writ petition was disposed of since the cause of action does not survive as the individual retired from service. 10. The petitioner ultimately retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Later the writ petition was disposed of since the cause of action does not survive as the individual retired from service. 10. As seen from the record, it cannot be said that deliberately to trouble the petitioner, the payment of retiral benefits have been delayed. The fact remains that there was a dispute about the community of the petitioner because his initial recruitment to the said post as ‘Kondakapu’ (ST) and later it was found he does not belong to the said community. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the suspension orders on the termination, the department preferred Writ appeals. During the pendency of the said writ appeals, the petitioner obtained an interim order directing the respondents to pay the due amount within four weeks. It is the case of the petitioner that his initial appointment and the promotions thereafter are not under the quota of the reservation as S.T. candidate. 11. It is relevant to extract the Order dated 19.08.1988 of the Joint Manager wrote to the General Manager and it reads as under: “It is informed that the official who was appointed as Typist during Oct.71 was promoted as AG.II (G) vide your office order No.225/75-E.1 dt.19.9.77. In the circumstances you are requested to delete the word ST appears in the seniority list against his name and treat him against general candidate in future without allowing any benefits under ST. Sri Rambabu is also being informed accordingly.” 12. The record further shows that basing on the report of the Director Tribal Welfare and the report of the Joint Manager, his services were terminated without conducting any enquiry. The grievance of the petitioner is that he entered into service under general category, but not under ST category. Contrasting the same, the version of the respondent Corporation is that petitioner entered into service in the post earmarked for ‘ST category’ and he was appointed in the post meant for ST category, being a general candidate since his inception into the Department is illegal and his termination is justifiable. 13. It is not in dispute that no enquiry has been conducted before his termination. The operative portion of the Common Order dated 07.06.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.3967 of 2000 and 20685 of 2010 reads as under: “For the above reasons, I set aside the order of termination dated 03.03.2000. 13. It is not in dispute that no enquiry has been conducted before his termination. The operative portion of the Common Order dated 07.06.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.3967 of 2000 and 20685 of 2010 reads as under: “For the above reasons, I set aside the order of termination dated 03.03.2000. The petitioner, on reaching the age of superannuation, retired from service on 30.06.2008 and he was already paid attendant benefits till 30.06.2008 by respondents and now he is entitled to receive the terminal benefits and the same cannot be denied. The order dated 30.11.2009 also suffers from same infirmities and in view of setting aside termination order dated 03.03.2000, the order dated 30.11.2009 is also set aside as illegal. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed…..” 14. Aggrieved by the said common Order in W.P. No.3967 of 2000, W.A. No.1801 of 2013 and against W.P. No.20685 of 2010, W.A. No.1691 of 2013 were preferred. In that writ appeals, this Court, by order dated 23.12.2015 in WAMP No.243 of 2015 in WA No.1691 of 2013 passed as under: "This petition is filed seeking extension of time granted in W.A.No.1691 of 2013 vide Judgment dated 04.12.2014. “While dismissing the said writ appeal filed by the petitioners herein, the Division Bench directed them to release all the retirement benefits of the respondent herein, as directed by the learned Single Judge within six weeks from the date of the order. It may be noticed that the learned Single Judge passed the order in W.P.No.20685 of 2010 on 07.06.2013 and the respondent retired on 30.06.2008. Viewed from any angle, there is an unreasonable delay in implementing the orders of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench. However, considering the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, four weeks' time is granted finally, by making it clear that no further extension will be granted. Accordingly, the petition is ordered.” 15. In WAMP No.244 of 2015 in WA No.1801 of 2013 this Court by order dated 23.12.2015 passed as under: "This petition is filed seeking extension of time granted in W.A.No.1801 of 2013 vide Judgment dated 04.12.2014 for a period of two months. Accordingly, the petition is ordered.” 15. In WAMP No.244 of 2015 in WA No.1801 of 2013 this Court by order dated 23.12.2015 passed as under: "This petition is filed seeking extension of time granted in W.A.No.1801 of 2013 vide Judgment dated 04.12.2014 for a period of two months. “While dismissing the said writ appeal filed by the petitioners herein, the Division Bench directed them to release all the retirement benefits of the respondent herein, as directed by the learned Single Judge within six weeks from the date of the order. It may be noticed that the learned Single Judge passed the order in W.P.No.3967 of 2010 on 07.06.2013 and the respondent retired on 30.06.2008. Viewed from any angle, there is an unreasonable delay in implementing the orders of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench. However, considering the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, four weeks' time is granted finally, by making it clear that no further extension will be granted. Accordingly, the petition is ordered.” 16. There is no dispute about the fact that the order referred to supra has been complied with. The petitioner is not claiming interest on that amount on the point of delay. The petitioner is not a person, who is ignorant of the Court procedure and has filed the present petition for the first time. This is the third round in his litigation. He ought to have sought for the interest on the point of delay in the earlier writ petition as well as in the writ appeals. He cannot take this plea in different spells inviting the litigation one by one from time to time. Admittedly, there is a delay on payment of gratuity to the petitioner, since the litigation is pending since long time. As ordered by the Court, the respondents complied with the direction. When he did not choose to seek the relief of interest, he cannot be permitted now to raise such issue. 17. Admittedly, there is a delay on payment of gratuity to the petitioner, since the litigation is pending since long time. As ordered by the Court, the respondents complied with the direction. When he did not choose to seek the relief of interest, he cannot be permitted now to raise such issue. 17. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Bandopadhya and others v. Union of India, 2019(13) SCC 42 , wherein while referring to the decision rendered by a Constitution Bench in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, AIR 1990 SC 1607 emphasis was placed stating that the application of principle of res judicata as in the context of a W.P. filed under Article 32, it would apply with greater force to bar a W.P. filed under Article 226 before the High Court. 18. Therefore, in the background of the aforesaid reasons and in the light of the law laid down on the issue, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.