Order : K MANMADHA RAO, J. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….. to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the Paragraph No.5(f) and (g) of Regularization of Messengers- cum-Sweepers/Daily Wage Workers working on Casual Basis/Casual Labour as Office Attendants (Multi-purpose) in Group-C, 2018 issued in Circular No.28, Ref.No.11/3, dated 21.05.2018 issued by the 1 st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, malafide, unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from contrary to the judgment of the Hon ’ ble High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.24779 2011, dated 27.12.2017 as well as contrary to the Award passed by the Hon ’ ble National Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad in I.A.No.8/1988 in Ref.No.1/1988, dated 26.04.1988 apart from contrary to the terms of settlement recorded by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Vijayawada in File No.7/123/2014- ALC-VJA, dated 29.09.2014, and set aside the same and issue consequential direction directing the Respondents to forthwith consider the case of the Petitioners for regularization of their services with effect from the date of their initial engagement in the cadre of Sweeper-cum- Messenger which was subsequently re-designated as Office Attendant (Multi purpose) with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, seniority, promotion as well as pensionary benefits ….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that all the petitioners were initially engaged by the respondent-bank as Temporary Part Time Sweepers (TPTS) during 1989 and 2011 at various branches in three districts i.e., Guntur, East Godavari and West Godavari to discharge the duties performed by regular Messengers in the respondent-bank. Even though the petitioners performed the duties attached to the post of Messengers, the authorities used to pay very meagre wages on daily wage basis, even not as per Minimum Wages Act. Even though the petitioners performed the duties attached to the post of Messengers, the authorities used to pay very meagre wages on daily wage basis, even not as per Minimum Wages Act. The petitioners accepted such conditions to some extent hoping that subsequently authorities will pay regular salary or at least Minimum Timescale on par with regular Messengers which was subsequently re-designated as Sweeper-cum-Messenger which was re-designated as Office Attendant (Multi- purpose) hoping that the authorities will regularize their services in that last grade service, in as much as not only the petitioners possessed requisite qualification for appointment to last grade post, in as much as earlier similarly placed employees’ services were not only regularized by the management, but also paid regular salary from the date of their initial engagement as per the Award passed by the National Industrial Tribunal in I.A.No.8/1988 in Ref.No.1/1988 as per the directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court based on letter sent by some employees working in Chaitanya Grameena Bank, who are similar to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners with great hope and confidence accepted such meagre wages and performed the regular duties attached to the post of Messenger, Sweeper-cum-Messenger, Office Attendant (Multi-purpose). Despite the petitioners making representations including representation by the Unions, the respondent-bank has not considered the request of the petitioners for regularization of their services and payment of regular salary on par with regular employees or at least Minimum Timescale. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.24779/2011 seeking a declaration to regularize their services in Group-C with all consequential benefits while seeking declaration to the effect that continuing the petitioners on casual basis for the last 1½ decades without regularizing the services as arbitrary and illegal. The said writ petition was admitted by this Court and the respondent-bank filed counter. When the said writ petition was pending, the respondent-bank initiated steps to dispense with services of some of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners approached Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Vijayawada under Industrial Disputes Act raising industrial dispute and the said Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Vijayawada after giving opportunity to the management and taking the consent and acceptance of the management passed order by way of settlement between the petitioners and management. But the management had not implemented the conditions accepted in aforesaid settlement order. But the management had not implemented the conditions accepted in aforesaid settlement order. The respondent-bank also agreed to pay the provident fund with effect from March, 2006 and in the event of any order passed by this Court for regularization in any date, the management agreed to pay the arrears also from the date of regularization of their services. Thereafter, this Court disposed the aforesaid Writ Petition No.24779/2011 by order dated 27.12.2017. Further, when this Court disposed the aforesaid writ petition, the terms and conditions settled before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Vijayawada by order dated 29.09.2014 was not brought to the notice of this Court. Even though this Court has issued directions to the respondent-bank in aforesaid writ petition, the respondent- bank without implementing the judgment rendered by this Court, issued fresh appointments to the petitioners as Office Attendants (Multi-purpose) after receiving applications from the petitioners in pursuance of Scheme of Regularization of Messengers-cum-Sweepers/Daily Wage Workers working on Casual Basis/Casual Labour as Office Attendants (Multi-purpose) in Group-C, 2018 issued in Circular No.28, Ref.No.11/3, dated 21.05.2018 issued by the 1 st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the 1 st respondent-bank came into existence from 01.03.2006 in pursuance of the amalgamation of the erstwhile ‘Godavari Grameena Bank’ and ‘Chaitanya Grameena Bank’ which were established under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, sponsored by ‘Andhra Bank’, which is now merged with ‘Union Bank of India’. The Regulation No.4 of the Service Regulation deals with the appointment of temporary employees of the respondent-bank, which stipulates that the Chairman of the Bank is empowered to make temporary appointments on casual basis for a period not exceeding 90 days in a year to meet any contingency, subject to such general or special instructions as may be issued by the Board from time to time and in consultation with the sponsor bank and all the petitioners were paid their respective wages/salaries as per the letter of temporary part time employment issued by the respective Branch Managers. This Court while disposed of the writ petition No.24779 of 2011 by considering all the aspects contended by the writ petitioners including the aspect of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, duly formulating the question as to “Whether petitioners can seek regularization of their services without subjecting them to any selection process”, with the direction to the respondent-bank to formulate the scheme for regularization of services of the petitioners and also issued other certain directions to the respondent-bank. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 27.12.2017 in W.P.No.24779 of 2011, the respondent-bank has formulated the scheme for regularization of Messengers-cum-sweepers/daily wage workers working on casual basis/casual labour as Office Attendants (Multi-purpose) in Group-C, 2018 with point (m) reads as “the applicants, who are selected for appointment, on regularization in terms of the current scheme, as Office Attendants (Multi-purpose) in Group-C cadre of the bank, are entitled for all monetary and service benefits, from the date of appointment only and not from any retrospective date, i.e., not for the services rendered prior to their regularization and point (n) reads as “the applicants, who are selected for appointment, on regularization in terms of the current scheme, as Office Attendants (Multi-purpose) in Group-C cadre of the bank, are not entitled for gratuity and/or pension or for any other attendant benefits, for the services rendered prior to their regularization”. 4. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the scheme for regularization was submitted for administrative clearance to Sponsor Bank vide letter dated 03.04.2018 and the Sponsor Bank had accorded administrative clearance for implementation of the scheme formulated vide its letter No.666/19/CGGB/27, dated 12.04.2018 and the said scheme was placed before the board in its 86 th meeting and the same was approved. Hence, the respondent-bank issued Circular No.28, dated 21.05.2018 titled “Regularization of Messengers-cum-sweepers/Daily wage workers working on casual basis/casual labour as office attendants (Multi-purpose) in Group-C, 2018” and the point 5(f) reads as “the applicant, who is selected for appointment, on regularization, as office attendant (Multi-purpose) in Group-C cadre of the bank, is entitled for all monetary and service benefits, from the date of appointment only and not from any retrospective date i.e., not for the services rendered prior to regularization” and point 5(g) reads as “the applicant, who is selected for appointment, on regularization, as Office Attendant (Multi-purpose) in Group-C cadre of the bank, is not entitled for gratuity and/or person or for any other attendant benefits, for the services rendered prior to regularization”. The circular was issued with the list of eligible persons along with invitation for applications for the selection process and the petitioners who were working with the bank as on 27.12.2017 had applied to the post of Office Attendant (Multi-purpose) by abiding to all the rules stated in the scheme and interviews were conducted by selection committee which was constituted by the Board. On selection, appointment letter was issued to selected candidates abiding to the notification issued vide Circular No.28, dated 21.05.2018. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Mr.P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, who appeared virtually through video conferencing and Mr.M.Upendra Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, whenever the regular vacancies or additional vacancies available in the cadre of Messengers in various branches belonging to the respondent-bank, the concerned authorities used to engage the services of the eligible candidate to perform the duties attached to the post of Messenger by designating them as Temporary part Time Sweepers (TPTS), obviously as per making regular appointments, sufficient time will take, and therefore, to cope up the minimum service required by the Messengers, the authorities used to engage the petitioners by calling the petitioners as Temporary Part Time Sweepers. While engaging the petitioners to perform the duties of Messengers, the authorities have not paid paying at least Minimum Time Scale attached to the post of Messenger as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that temporary employees or casual labour or contract employees are entitled to equal pay for equal work. Subsequently, the same principle followed by various Courts, and directed all the States and instrumentalities to pay the Minimum Timescale attached to that particular post which cadre to the temporary, adhoc, contract or casual workers, without any discrimination in terms of the constitutional principles and philosophy. He further submits that, even though the petitioners performed the duties attached to the post of Messenger, the authorities used to pay very meagre wages on daily wage basis, even not as per Minimum Wages Act. He further submits that this Court never directed the respondent-bank to issue any fresh appointment either conducting any selection along with any fresh candidates or even only exclusively for the petitioners. This Court only directed the respondent-bank to consider their case for regularization after preparing the scheme subject to eligibility of the petitioners. Therefore, once the respondent bank found that the petitioners are eligible in all respects, the only course open to the respondent-bank to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from their initial engagement and pay regular salary from the date of regularization and all other consequential benefits. He further submits that the declaration/ undertaking obtained by the respondent bank from the petitioners, will not in any way affect to seek regularization of their services with effect from their initial engagement. He further submits that the Award passed by the Hon’ble National Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad in I.A.No.8/1988 in Ref.No.1/1988, dated 26.04.1988, which was rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and which was implemented to the employees who were engaged prior to engagement of the petitioners. He further submits that the respondent-bank implemented the aforesaid Award to the employees, who are engaged prior to petitioners’ engagement and that is one of the reasons for accepting for meagre salary initially, even otherwise extending the benefits to some of the employees and not extending the same benefits to the petitioners in the same cadre is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the decision of a learned Division Bench of composite High Court at Telangana in P.Lingamma and others vs. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary and others , [W.P.No.41797 of 2015] , wherein it was while relying on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in District Collector Vs. M.L.Singh , [ (2009) 8 SCC 480 ] , held as follows: “In the light of this authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court, as recently as in August, 2015, on the issue of regularization of services under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, we have o hesitation in holding that the Tribunal erred in denying relief to the petitioners herein insofar as their claim for regularisation from an anterior date was concerned. They would therefore be entitled to regularization of their services from the date they completed five years of service but would not be entitled to any monetary benefits in terms of arrears of pay. They would however be eligible for notional fixation of pay and seniority.” 8. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and others vs. P.Lingamma and others , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by the government and directed the respondents to implement the impugned Judgment and orders of the concerned High Court. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to allow the writ petition. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu and another vs. A.Singamuthu , [ (2017) 4 SCC 113 ] , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “17. The learned Single Judge erred in extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 to the respondent that too retrospectively from the date of completion of ten years of service of the respondent. The respondent was appointed on 01.04.1989 and completed ten years of service on 31.03.1999. The learned Single Judge erred in extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 to the respondent that too retrospectively from the date of completion of ten years of service of the respondent. The respondent was appointed on 01.04.1989 and completed ten years of service on 31.03.1999. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, if the respondent is to be given monetary benefits from the date of completion of ten years of service, that is from 01.04.1999 till the date of his regularization that is 18.06.2012, the financial commitment to the State would be around Rs.10,85,113/- (approximately) towards back wages apart from pension which will have a huge impact on the State exchequer. That apart, the learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that in respect of Registration Department, about 172 persons were regularized under various G.Os. and if the impugned order is sustained, the Government will have to pay the back wages to all those persons from the date of completion of ten years in service and this will have a huge impact on the State exchequer. Since the impugned order directing regularization of the respondent from the date of completion of their ten years would adversely affect the State exchequer in a huge manner, the impugned order cannot be sustained on this score also. 18. It is pertinent to note that even the regularisation of services of part-time employees vide G.O.(Rt.)No.505 Finance (AA-2) Department dated 14.10.2009 and G.O.(2D)No.32 Finance (T.A.2) Department dated 26.03.2010 was effected by extending the benefit of G.O. dated 28.02.2006 only from the date of Government Orders and not from the date of completion of their ten years of service. The Division Bench also failed to take note that G.O.Ms.No.22 P &AR Dept. dated 28.02.2006 is applicable only to full-time daily wage employees and who had completed ten years of continuous service as on 01.01.2006 and not to part-time employees. As per G.O.(Rt.) No.84 dated 18.06.2012, the respondent is entitled to the monetary benefits only from the date of issuance of Government Order regularizing his service that is 18.06.2012. The impugned order of the Division Bench affirming the order of the Single Judge granting benefits to the respondent from the date of completion of ten years of service is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.” Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. The impugned order of the Division Bench affirming the order of the Single Judge granting benefits to the respondent from the date of completion of ten years of service is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.” Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Perused the record. 11. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the respondent-bank has given notification dated 21.05.2018 and the relevant points read as follows: “5. Notification for regularization of Messengers – cum – sweepers/Daily Wage Workers working on Casual Basis/Casual Labour as Office Attendants (Multi-purpose) in Group-C, 2018. f) The applicant, who is selected for appointment, on regularization, as Office Attendant (Multi-purpose) in Group C cadre of the bank, is entitled for all monetary and service benefits, from the date of appointment only and not from any retrospective date, i.e., not for the services rendered prior to regularization. g) The applicant, who is selected for appointment, on regularization, as Office Attendant (Multi-purpose) in Group C cadre of the bank, is not entitled for gratuity and/or pension or for any other attendant benefits, for the services rendered prior to regularization.” 12. As seen from the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.24779 of 2011, this Court disposed the writ petition vide order dated 27.12.2017 with the following directions: a) The respondent – Bank shall evolve a scheme for regularization taking due note of the observations made above and grant regularization of services of all the petitioners, subject to assessment of their suitability. b) Petitioners be subjected to selection process to the posts of Office Attendants (Multi-purpose) sanctioned on 14.05.2011 without insisting that their names should be sponsored by Employment Exchange or any other agency. c) While considering for such recruitment, having regard to long service rendered by petitioners, the Bank may evolve some procedure/scheme to grant weightage to petitioners for the service rendered subject to such service being satisfactory. Their eligibility as to age and educational qualifications has to be assessed as directed in earlier paragraphs. d) It is made clear that such consideration is confined only to those persons who are actually in service and it is not applicable to the persons who have left the service or died, names of whom are noted in the earlier paragraphs. Their eligibility as to age and educational qualifications has to be assessed as directed in earlier paragraphs. d) It is made clear that such consideration is confined only to those persons who are actually in service and it is not applicable to the persons who have left the service or died, names of whom are noted in the earlier paragraphs. e) The entire exercise should be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months. 13. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the petitioners filed W.P.No.24779 of 2011 and while the same was pending before this Court, the respondent-bank tried to dispense with services of some of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners approached Assistant Labour commissioner (Central), Vijayawada under Industrial Disputes Act and the management after giving opportunity to both parties, passed the order by way of settlement, wherein the management has agreed to continue petitioners’ employment as temporary casual labourers (Sub-Staff) with effect from 15.09.2014. But the respondent-bank had not implemented the aforesaid terms of settlement. While so, this Court disposed the Writ Petition No.24779 of 2011 vide order dated 27.12.2017 directing the respondent-bank to evolve a scheme and grant regularization of services of all the petitioners. But the respondent-bank without implementing the orders of this Court has issued fresh appointments to the petitioners as Office Assistants (Multi-purpose) after receiving applications from the petitioners in pursuance of the Scheme of Regularization of Messengers-cum-Sweepers/Daily Wage Workers on Casual Basis/Casual Labour as Office Attendants in Group-C, 2018, which has deprived all the benefits arisen out of long service to the petitioners. 14. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that, in compliance of the order of this Court dated 27.12.2017 passed in W.P.No.24779 of 2011, as per the legal advice and with the approval of parent bank, formulated the scheme for Regularization of Messengers-cum- Sweepers/Daily Wage Workers on Casual Basis/Casual Labour as Office Attendants (Multi-purpose) in Group-C, 2018 and made points (f) and (g) stating that the applicants are entitled for all monetary and service benefits, from the date of appointment only and not from any retrospective date i.e., not for the services rendered prior to their regularization and the applicants will not be entitled for gratuity and/or pension or for any other attendant benefits, for the services rendered prior to their regularization. The petitioners who were working with the bank as on 27.12.2017 had applied to the post of Office Attendant (Multi-purpose) by abiding to all the rules stated in the scheme and interviews were conducted by selection committee which was constituted by the Board and appointment letters were given to the selected candidates abiding to the notification vide Circular No.28, dated 21.05.2018. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.L.Singh ’s case (stated supra), this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, declaring that the petitioners are entitled to be regularised in service with effect from the date that they have completed five years continuous service. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services w.e.f. the date of initial engagement in the cadre of Sweeper-cum- Messenger which was subsequently recognized as Office Attendant (Multi- purpose). It is made clear that the petitioners are not entitled to any monetary benefits in terms of arrears of pay. The petitioners however be eligible for notational fixation of pay and seniority. No costs. 17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.