ORDER : (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioners in both these petitions are before this Court seeking the following reliefs: “1. To issue a writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of the Writ of mandamus, to order and direct the respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioners herein as employees of the Respondent Corporation being Life Insurance Corporation of India through a scheme similar to the one as enumerated in Annexure-A dated 18.01.2011. 2. To direct the respondent Corporation to consider formulation of a scheme as per what was envisaged in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s Uma Devi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 vide Annexure-D. 3. To issue directions and such other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit directing the Respondent Corporation not to engage any temporary employees or Badli/Daily wagers in future and make provisions for regular recruitment of Class III and IV Staff. 4. Pass such other Order or Orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit just and proper under the facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel Smt.Kavitha S. Jadhav for Sri.Arun L. Neelopant, appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel Sri.A.P.Murari, appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioners 1 to 106 are said to have been engaged at various branch offices coming under the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 in the cadre of sub-staff or Group-D employees and have been working for long time ranging from 2 years to 24 years. The petitioners are now before this Court on the score that the petitioners would be disengaged. 4. Initially, on an apprehension that they would be disengaged from their services, but that did not come about, and the petitioners have been continuing to work. The claim of the petitioners as per the prayer that is sought is for regularisation of their services in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v. UMADEVI reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . The claim of the petitioners as per the prayer that is sought is for regularisation of their services in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v. UMADEVI reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of LIC OF INDIA v. D.V. ANIL KUMAR reported in 2011 SCC OnLine SC 1602 , where the LIC had undertaken that they would formulate a scheme to regularise these daily wagers as a one time measure should be directed in the case at hand as well. 5. The learned counsel Sri.A.P.Murari, appearing for the respondents-Corporation places on record a subsequent judgment of a three Judge bench of the Apex Court in the case of RANBIR SINGH v. LIC , (2023) 17 SCC 196 , which considers the judgment in the case of D.V. ANIL KUMAR supra and issues several directions. The directions are as follows: “… … … 95. The dispute is now of an antiquity tracing back to nearly four decades. Finality has to be wrung down on the dispute to avoid uncertainty and more litigation. Nearly thirty-one years have elapsed since 1991. We have come to the conclusion that the claims of those workers who are duly found upon verification to meet the threshold conditions of eligibility should be resolved by the award of monetary compensation in lieu of absorption, and in full and final settlement of all claims and demands. Thus, this Court directs the following: 95.1. A fresh verification of the claims of workers who claim to have been employed for at least 70 days in Class IV posts over a period of three years or 85 days in Class III posts over a period of two years shall be carried out; 95.2. The verification shall be confined to persons who were working between 20-5-1985 and 4-3-1991; 95.3. All persons who are found to be eligible on the above norm shall be entitled to compensation computed @ Rs 50,000 for every year of service or part thereof. The verification shall be confined to persons who were working between 20-5-1985 and 4-3-1991; 95.3. All persons who are found to be eligible on the above norm shall be entitled to compensation computed @ Rs 50,000 for every year of service or part thereof. The payment of compensation at the above rate shall be in lieu of reinstatement, and in full and final settlement of all claims and demands of the workers in lieu of regularisation or absorption and notwithstanding the directions issued by this Court in T.N. Terminated Employees Assn. [T.N. Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Assn. v. LIC, (2015) 9 SCC 62 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 738] ; 95.4. In carrying out the process of verification, the Committee appointed by this Court shall not be confined to the certified list before CGIT and shall consider the claims of all workers who were engaged between 20-5-1985 and 4-3- 1991; 95.5. For the purpose of verification, LIC shall make available all the records at the divisional level to the Committee appointed by this Court; 95.6. It will be open to the workers concerned or, as the case may be, the unions and associations representing them, to make available such documentary material in their possession for the purpose of verification; 95.7. The process of verification shall be carried out independently without regard to the Dogra Report, which is held to be flawed; 95.8. The payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement shall be effected by LIC within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report of verification by the Committee; and 95.9. The task of verification shall be carried out by a committee consisting of: (a) Mr Justice P.K.S. Baghel, former Judge of the Allahabad High Court; and (b) Shri Rajiv Sharma, former District Judge and member of the UPHJS. LIC shall provide all logistical assistance to the Committee and bear all expenses, including secretarial expenses, travel and incidental expenses, as well as the fees payable to the members of the Committee. Justice P.K.S. Baghel shall fix the terms of remuneration payable to the members of the Committee. 96. The miscellaneous applications and the writ petitions shall be governed by the above directions and are disposed of in the above terms.” 6. The Apex Court holds that the employees are entitled to monetary compensation and not regularisation. 7. Justice P.K.S. Baghel shall fix the terms of remuneration payable to the members of the Committee. 96. The miscellaneous applications and the writ petitions shall be governed by the above directions and are disposed of in the above terms.” 6. The Apex Court holds that the employees are entitled to monetary compensation and not regularisation. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the review petition against the said the order is rejected, a curative petition is preferred before the Apex Court, and that notice is issued in the said curative petition and it is still pending. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the petition must be pending before this Court, failing which the rights of these petitioners would be put to jeopardy. 8. The learned counsel Sri.A.P.Murari would also place reliance upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in PUSHPA H.E. v. THE CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, Writ Petition No.39961 of 2017, disposed on 15.06.2023 which considers the entire spectrum and disposes the petition following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RANBIR SINGH supra, and holds as follows: “… … … 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the issuance of circular by respondent No.3 restricting the consideration for absorptions only for the applicants, who are petitioners before the CGIT is illegal and arbitrary. 4. The relevant facts in the background of this writ petition is that, the dispute was raised by the Union at the instance of Badli, temporary and part-time workman, who were working in the establishments of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) for absorption in regular and permanent service in the category of Class-III and IV services. The terms of the reference of the dispute was as follows: 1) “Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India in not observing Badli, temporary and part-time workman employed in the establishment of LIC after 20th May, 1985 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman are entitled.” 2) The industrial dispute was registered as ID No.27/1991 the Tribunal passed an award holding that the action on the part of the Corporation is not justified and the workman employed after 20th May, 1985 should be given absorption in their job. 5. The said award was in challenge in W.P. No.4346/2001 before the High Court of Delhi. 5. The said award was in challenge in W.P. No.4346/2001 before the High Court of Delhi. The writ petition was allowed by setting aside the award of the CGIT dated 18.06.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal was preferred in LPA No.690/2004. The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi by its order dated 21.03.2007 dismissed the appeal preferred by the workman. The same was assailed before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6950/2009 and the Apex Court by its judgment dated 18.03.2015 held that the award passed by the CGIT in I.D. No.27/1991 is legal and valid and the Corporation has to implement by absorbing the concerned workman in permanent post. The LIC filed Review Petition No.2993/2015 and the Apex Court by its order dated 09.08.2016 allowed the review petition for the limited purpose only with regard to back wages payable and awarded 50% of back wages with consequential relief. 6. A Curative Petition (C) No.23/2017 in Review Petition (C) No.3846/2015 in Civil Appeal No.6950/2009 and batch matters were filed by the Corporation. The said curative petitions instituted by the LIC challenging the judgment in review, which was rejected on 22.02.2017. The LIC issued advertisement calling for applications from workers who were employed as Badli/temporary/part-time workers in its establishment from 20.05.1985 to 04.03.1991 in terms of the eligibility criteria determined by the award and the LIC issued circular prescribing the eligibility for absorptions. 7. This being the facts pertaining to the workers in I.D.No.27/1991, the Apex Court by its judgment dated 27.04.2022 in Civil Appeal No.6950/2009 and connected matters has considered the entire aspect and Sri. P. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. S.N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the lis in this petition has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Ranbir Singh Vs. SK Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance Corp. of India & Anr in Civil Appeal No.6950/2009 dated 27.04.2022 [Ranbir Singh] and the present petition is squarely covered. S.N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the lis in this petition has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Ranbir Singh Vs. SK Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance Corp. of India & Anr in Civil Appeal No.6950/2009 dated 27.04.2022 [Ranbir Singh] and the present petition is squarely covered. It is submitted that the entire aspect of the matter has been considered and the Apex Court held that fresh verification of the claims of the workman who claimed to have been employed for atleast 70 days of service in Class-IV post over a period of three years or 85 days of service in Class-III post over a period of two years was directed to be carried out and a Committee was directed to be formed for the specific cause. The Apex Court held that the employees like the petitioners, who raise such claims were also permitted to raise their claims before the Committee and produce documents for verification of their claims. The Apex Court at paragraph No.75 has issued the following directions: “75. The dispute is now of an antiquity tracing back to nearly four decades. Finality has to be wrung down on the dispute to avoid uncertainty and more litigation. Nearly thirty-one years have elapsed since 1991. We have come to the conclusion that the claims of those workers who are duly found upon verification to meet the threshold conditions of eligibility should be resolved by the award of monetary compensation in lieu of absorption, and in full and final settlement of all claims and demands. Thus, this Court directs the following: (i) A fresh verification of the claims of workers who claim to have been employed for at least 70 days in Class IV posts over a period of three years or 85 days in Class III posts over a period of two years shall be carried out; (ii) The verification shall be confined to persons who were working between 20 May 1985 and 4 March 1991; (iii) All persons who are found to be eligible on the above norm shall be entitled to compensation computed at the rate of Rs 50,000 for every year of service or part thereof. The payment of compensation at the above rate shall be in lieu of reinstatement, and in full and final settlement of all claims and demands of the workers in lieu of regularisation or absorption and notwithstanding the directions issued by this Court in TN Terminated Employees Association (supra); (iv) In carrying out the process of verification, the Committee appointed by this Court shall not be confined to the certified list before the CGIT and shall consider the claims of all workers who were engaged between 20 May 1985 and 4 March 1991; (v) For the purpose of verification, LIC shall make available all the records at the Divisional level to the Committee appointed by this Court; (vi) It will be open to the workers concerned or, as the case may be, the Unions and Associations representing them, to make available such documentary material in their possession for the purpose of verification; (vii) The process of verification shall be carried out independently without regard to the Dogra Report, which is held to be flawed; (viii) The payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement shall be effected by LIC within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report of verification by the Committee; and (ix) The task of verification shall be carried out by a Committee consisting of: (a) Mr Justice P K S Baghel, former Judge of the Allahabad High Court; and (b) Shri Rajiv Sharma, former District Judge and member of the UPHJS. LIC shall provide all logistical assistance to the Committee and bear all expenses, including secretarial expenses, travel and incidental expenses, as well as the fees payable to the members of the Committee. Justice P K S Baghel shall fix the terms of remuneration payable to the members of the Committee.” 8. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior Counsel for the respondents and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ranbir Singh stated supra, the grievance of the petitioners would stand redressed, by the consideration of the committee constituted, pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court. 9. 9. In view of the above, it is made clear that the petitioners are entitled to approach the committee constituted under the directions of the Apex Court dated 27.04.2022 in Civil Appeal No.6950/2009 and connected matters and their claims to be duly addressed by the said committee. It is also to be made clear that while considering absorption, verification shall be confined to the persons who were working between 20.05.1985 and 04.03.1991 as observed by the Apex Court in Ranbir Singh’s case stated supra.” (Emphasis supplied) The Co-ordinate Bench also notices that a curative petition is preferred and is pending before the Apex Court. But taking note of the judgment in the case of RANBIR SINGH supra, the afore-quoted order is passed. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner now submits that several matters are pending before the Principal Bench at Bengaluru, where interim orders are operating and the petitioners therein are not removed from service. On the strength of those interim orders, these petitioners also have continued in service, notwithstanding the fact that there was no interim order in the case at hand. In the light of the Curative Petition pending and the pendency of the petitions before the Principal Bench, Bengaluru, it is needless to observe that the respondents-Corporation would not relieve these petitioners without the leave of the court. However, observing that in the event the curative petitions would go in favour of the employees, the petitioners would be at liberty to revive these petitions in terms of the order that would be passed by the Apex Court in the curative petition. 10. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RANBIR SINGH supra and the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of PUSHPA H. E. supra, I deem it appropriate to dispose these petitions without interfering with the impugned order or granting the prayer as is done by the Co-ordinate Bench. Ordered accordingly.