JUDGMENT S.R. Krishna Kumar, J. - Though the matter is posted at the stage of orders with the consent of both sides, matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a part time sweeper cum messenger in the respondent-bank in the year 1984. Pursuant to departmental enquiry initiated against him, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The said order of dismissal having been challenged by the petitioner, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court passed an award dated 09.09.1999 directing reinstatement of the petitioner and granted other consequential reliefs. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-bank preferred W.P. No. 41445/1999 before this Court. By order dated 21.06.2005, this Court confirmed the order of reinstatement passed in favour of the petitioner. However, the award of the Tribunal directing payment of back wages was quashed. 3. It transpires that subsequently in W.P. No. 8273/2001 & connected matters filed by the workmen of Malaprabha Grameena Bank, learned Single Judge by order dated 11.06.2003 issued the following directions. I. The order passed by the first respondent Bank as set out in the minutes of the Joint Meeting held on 19.2.2001 (Annexure- M ) in so far as it pertains to regularization of sub-staff from the date of their initial engagement reading the Management clarified that the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka is pertaining to specific RRB and the same is not applicable to the cases of the Bank is set aside. II. A direction is issued to the first respondent Bank to regularize the services of the petitioners; who are working as part time Sweepers/ Messengers in the first respondent Bank as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Court s order with all service and monetary benefits as are applicable to full time Sweepers/ Messengers. After such regularization, the first respondent Bank is directed to settle their arrears of wages, if any, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court s order. After such regularization, the first respondent Bank is directed to settle their arrears of wages, if any, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court s order. It is also made clear that the first respondent Bank shall not pay these arrears to the part time Sweepers/ Messengers but would deposit the same in a fixed deposit for a period of five years and give it to them only thereafter with interest or when they really require the money to perform the marriage of their sons or daughters whichever is earlier. III. With these observations and directions, these writ petitions are disposed off. No order as to costs. Ordered accordingly. - - - 4. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-bank herein preferred W.A. No. 5288/2003 which was dismissed by the Hon ble Division Bench by its order dated 15.06.2010. The operative portion of the decision of the Hon ble Division Bench is as under: 8. In the aforesaid circumstances we are of the view that as these employees have been absorbed as permanent employees from 01.06.1987 and in view of the report of the Committee constituted that there are still part-time employees throughout the country and the said employees perform function of regular employees and that the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that the regularization of these employees as permanent employees from the date of their entering into service and all promotions made by the banks prior to 01.09.1987 will not be disturbed, We are of the view that this matter should be given a quitters, as the respondents would be entitled to only monetary benefits. In that view of the matter we do not see any merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. - - - 5. Pursuant thereto, the respondent-bank gave effect to the aforesaid orders of this Court vide Annexure-E dated 19.01.2011 thereby regularizing the services of all part time sweepers cum messengers. 6. In that view of the matter we do not see any merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. - - - 5. Pursuant thereto, the respondent-bank gave effect to the aforesaid orders of this Court vide Annexure-E dated 19.01.2011 thereby regularizing the services of all part time sweepers cum messengers. 6. It is the grievance of the petitioner that since he was similarly situated, he submitted representation at Annexure-G dated 18.07.2012 to the respondent-bank seeking parity in terms of the decisions of this Court and the decision taken by the respondent-bank at Annexure-E. The said report made by the petitioner having been rejected by the respondent-bank vide Annexure-H dated 04.10.2012 the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doctrine of parity since he is similarly placed in view of the fact that he was also appointed as part time sweeper cum messenger. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order at Annexure-H issued by the respondent-bank refusing to regularize services of the petitioner is vitiated and the same deserves to be quashed by this Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-bank in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and inviting my attention to the documents at R1 to R6 submits that there is no merit in the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have given my anxious considerations to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. 9. I have given my anxious considerations to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. Though several contentions have been urged by the learned counsel for the respondent-bank in its statement of objections placing reliance upon the decision of the apex Court in Uma devi s case, (2006) AIR SC 1806 (Annexure-R3) in order to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to seek regularization, in the face of the undisputed fact that the W.A. No. 5288/2003 filed by this very same respondent-bank having been dismissed by the Hon ble Division Bench, thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge coupled with the respondent s resolution at Annexure-E dated 19.01.2011 to regularize part time sweepers cum messengers who are similarly situated as the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that by invoking the doctrine of parity, the petitioner would also be entitled to be regularized into the services of the respondent-bank. 11. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the impugned order at Annexure-H refusing to regularize services of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and the same deserves to be quashed. In the result, I pass the following order. ORDER i) Writ Petition is hereby allowed; ii) The impugned order at Annexure-H is hereby quashed; iii) Since the petitioner has attained superannuation during January 2020, I direct the respondent to give all the benefits to the petitioner in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 8273- 8441/2001 dated 11.06.2011 as well as in paragraph no. 8 of the decision of the Hon ble Division Bench in W.A. No. 5288/2003 and also in terms of the decision/resolution at Annexure-E dated 19.01.2011 passed/ issued by the respondent-bank; iv) To facilitate the petitioner to avail the aforesaid benefits expeditiously, petitioner is directed to submit a representation along with the writ papers as well as copy of this order to the respondent within a period of two weeks from today. Upon receipt of the said representation by the petitioner, the respondent is directed to consider the same and take necessary steps to address the grievance of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the said representation submitted by the petitioner. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition stands allowed.