JUDGMENT 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arising out of the judgment and order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 607 of 2018 in and by which the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the respondent is entitled for parity of pay. 3. The respondent was appointed on daily wages on 20.12.1977 with the appellant-bank at salary of Rs.300/-. Initially he was appointed for three months and later on the same was extended by 18 months and 10 days upto 30.06.1979. His Service was not extended beyond 30.06.1979. 4. The respondent approached the Labour Court and the Labour Court ordered reinstatement from 01.07.1979 to 31.12.1979. Against which the respondent approached the High Court. The High Court by order dated 13.05.1994 allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent with full back wages. The special leave petition preferred by the appellant-bank came to be dismissed by the order dated 30.10.1996. The respondent was reinstated on 16.12.1996. According to the appellant-bank, the respondent was reinstated only on daily wages and he was not regularized. The respondent was considered for regularization by the Selection Committee constituted under the Provisions of Notification No. 3124/12C-2-151(5)-83 dated 30.07.1985 and Notification No. 3170/12C-2-600 (159)-89 dated 26.07.1990. Case of respondent for regularization was rejected on 21.07.1998. The Selection Committee found that the respondent was ineligible for regularization since at the time of initial appointment, the respondent did not possess the requisite qualification i.e. he was below the age of twenty-one years. Be it noted that the respondent did not challenge the said order dated 21.07.1998. 5. After eleven years, the respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 66927 of 2009 seeking regularization with effect from the date of his juniors were regularized. By the order dated 10.12.2009, the High Court directed the appellant to consider the respondent's representation. The Selection Committee by its order dated 17.08.2010 again considered the case of the respondent, but found him ineligible under the rules i.e. he was less than 21 years at the time of initial appointment and the same was communicated to the respondent. By the order dated 10.12.2009, the High Court directed the appellant to consider the respondent's representation. The Selection Committee by its order dated 17.08.2010 again considered the case of the respondent, but found him ineligible under the rules i.e. he was less than 21 years at the time of initial appointment and the same was communicated to the respondent. The respondent again filed Writ Petition No. 56027 of 2010 seeking parity in pay scale which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 04.04.2018 by holding that the appellant-bank has granted regular scale of pay to one Nand Kishore Awasthi and, therefore, the respondent is also entitled to parity of pay scale. The High Court held that the respondent is entitled to salary on the principles of equal pay for equal work as he admittedly discharged his duties as full time accountant on a vacancy existing in the bank. In the meanwhile, the respondent has retired from service on 31.01.2018. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that even though the respondent was under age at the time of his initial appointment and did not attain the age of 21 years, he was not fulfilling the age limit prescribed, the High Court held that the respondent was being allowed to continue in service subsequent thereto till attaining the age of 20 years. The High Court, therefore, directed that at least from the date when the respondent had acquired 20 years, he is to be treated in continuous employment of the appellant-Bank and on those findings, the Division Bench has upheld the order of the learned Single Judge. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant-bank has filed this appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. M.C. Dhingra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Mr. kailash Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 9. According to the appellant-bank when the respondent was reinstated on 16.12.1996, he was reinstated only on daily wages. It is submitted that the respondent was reinstated on daily wages. It is made that the case of the respondent was considered by the Selection Committee for regularization. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. 9. According to the appellant-bank when the respondent was reinstated on 16.12.1996, he was reinstated only on daily wages. It is submitted that the respondent was reinstated on daily wages. It is made that the case of the respondent was considered by the Selection Committee for regularization. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. M.C. Dhingra, has drawn our attention to the minutes of the Selection Committee dated 21.07.1998 (Annexure P-10) as per which the case of the respondent was considered and the Committee found that at the time of initial appointment, the respondent has not completed 21 years and he was aged only 19 years and, therefore, not eligible for regularization. The relevant part of the Minutes of the Selection Committee reads as under: On the basis of the information and records presented by the Coordinator/Managing Director U.P. Cooperative Bank Limited Lucknow consideration was given over the compliance of the judgment passed in the cases filed by the staff working on daily wage basis at that point of time before the Labour Court/Hon'ble High Court, the cadre wise details is as under: Lallan Rai (General)-Appointment of Sh. Rai was done on the date of 20.12.1977 at that point of time his age was 19 years 11 months 14 days as a consequence of which he did not come under the age limit prescribed by the Bank and therefore Sh.Rai was not found eligible. 10. As rightly contended by Mr. M.C. Dhingra, learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent has not chosen to challenge the order dated 21.07.1998 as per which he was found ineligible for regularization. However, the respondent was allowed to continue in service and he has served for about 41 years. Since the Committee has found that the respondent was not eligible for regularization and considering the fact that the respondent has not chosen to challenge the proceedings and order of the Selection Committee, in our view, the High Court ought not to have allowed the writ petition granting parity of pay scale to the respondent at par with one Nand Kishore Awasthi. The respondent acquiesced in the said order and without any protest continued to work with the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and the appeal is allowed. 11. The respondent acquiesced in the said order and without any protest continued to work with the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and the appeal is allowed. 11. Though we have arrived at the above conclusion, in the facts arising herein we cannot also loose sight of the fact that the respondent has worked for four decades. He has spent entire service as a daily wager working for the appellant with the hope of regularization and has ultimately reached the age of superannuation. 12. Despite the fact, we have kept in view the legal position to set aside the impugned order, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the length of service rendered by the respondent to the appellant-Bank, in our view, a reasonable financial benefit should be made available to the respondent without, however, treating the same as a precedent for any other case. In that view, notwithstanding that the above appeal is allowed, the appellant shall pay a lump sum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) in settlement of all claims. The same shall be paid within a period of three months, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum until the amount is paid.