ORDER 1. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize them from the date they have completed two years of service on work-charge establishment. 2. Smt. Sonali Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.21886/2017 (Rajaram Raikwar v. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. and others ) decided on 21.1.2020, submits that case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the said decision, therefore, they be also granted the same benefits. 3. The co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 21.1.2020 passed in W.P. No.21886/2017 had held as under:- ''Shri Niranjan Pathak, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. With the consent finally heard. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: ''(1) That by the issuance of the writ in the nature of Mandamus the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record relating to the case of the petitioner. (2) That by the issuance of the writ in the nature of Certiorari the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 2.11.2017(Anx.P/12). (3) That by the issuance of the writ in the nature of Mandamus the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of completion of two years satisfactory services under work-charged establishment i.e. from 27.8.1997 and further to grant all consequential benefits like arrears of salary, increments and seniority etc. alongwith interest @ 15% per annum on the due amount. (4) Any other order, writ or direction may be passed in favour of the petitioner as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstance of the present case, in the interest of justice.'' 2. Shri Niranjan Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singular contention. He submits that this Court by order dated 3.8.2011 in WP No.4378/2006(S) (Smt. Mangla Supe v.M.P. State Electricity Board and others) decided the similar controversy and opined that the similarly situated petitioner therein is entitled to be regularized on completion of two years of probationary period. Consequently, the order passed by the department rejecting the similar claim of petitioner therein was set aside. Consequently, the order passed by the department rejecting the similar claim of petitioner therein was set aside. The petitioner therein was directed to be regularized with effect from 13.1.2000 because her initial appointment was made on 13.1.1998 and she completed her probation of two years. The similar view is taken by this Court in W.P. No.8373/2014 (Sunil Kumar Raghuvanshi v. M.P. Power Generating Co. Ltd. and others). It is urged that the similar orders have been implemented by the respondents. It is pointed out that aforesaid orders have been implemented. The order dated 1.7.2014 in respect of Sunil Kumar Raghuvanshi is placed on record (page 47). Thus, it is prayed that petitioner being similarly situated be extended similar benefits. 3. Per contra, Shri Rakesh Tiwari opposed the relief by placing reliance on the return filed by the respondents. Heavy reliance is placed on the circular dated 3.10.2001 Annexure R/2 wherein it is mentioned that the employees appointed on compassionate basis should not be regularized. In addition, it is urged that the respondents have passed the reasoned order and rejected the claim of petitioner by order dated 2.11.2017 Annexure P/12. In view of circular dated 3.10.2001, no fault can be found in the impugned order. 4. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The petitioner is claiming parity with the persons who approached this Court in the case of Mangla Supe and Sunil Kumar Raghuvanshi (supra). Interestingly, in the case of Mangla Supe (Supra), the respondents placed reliance on the same circular dated 3.10.2001 Annexure R/2. This aspect was considered by this Court in para 10 onwards and after considering the matter in great detail, this Court opined that employee is entitled to get the benefit of regularization from the date he completed two years of service on probation. Pertinently, the respondents have translated these orders in reality and extended the benefit in favour of similarly situated employees which is evident from orders dated 25.4.2014 and 1.7.2014. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any circumstance which makes the present matter different than the cases on which reliance is placed. Pertinently, the respondents have translated these orders in reality and extended the benefit in favour of similarly situated employees which is evident from orders dated 25.4.2014 and 1.7.2014. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any circumstance which makes the present matter different than the cases on which reliance is placed. In spite of specific query from the Bench during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents could not establish that petitioner's case is different than those cases which were decided and decisions are implemented. 8. In Inder Pal Yadav and others v. Union of India and others, (1985) 2 SCC 648 opined as under:- ''Therefore, those who could not come to the court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court.€Â'' 9. The petitioner has successfully established that he is sailing in the same boat like Mangla Supe (supra). Thus, he is entitled to get the benefit of principle of parity. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 2.1.2017 (Annexure P/14) is set aside. The respondents shall treat the petitioner as regularized on completion of two years of period of probation and grant him all consequential benefits including pay fixation, arrears of pay, due seniority, etc. The entire exercise be completed within sixty days from the date of production of copy of this order. 10. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.'' Since undisputedly, the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the aforesaid order, therefore the present writ petition is also disposed of on the same terms by holding that the order passed in WP. No.21886/2017 will apply mutatis mutandis in the present case also.