ORDER : R. NATARAJ, J. In all these petitions, the petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider their representation dated 22.12.2023 and to regularize their services on completion of 10 years of service based on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court on 07.03.2014 in the case of Malthi Das (retired) now P.B.Mahishy and others Vs. Suresh and others - (2014) 13 SCC 249 and also consider their case on the principle of parity on par with Government order dated 01.03.2021 and 23.08.2023 and to direct the respondents to extend all consequential benefits such as difference of salary increment and fixation of salary on regularization of service upon completion of 10 years of service. 2. (i) The petitioners in all these petitions are Group-C and Group-D employees working in the Department of Sericulture, Government of Karnataka. They all approached this Court for regularization of their services in the light of various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Malthi Das (retired) now P.B.Mahishy and others Vs. Suresh and others (referred supra) on the principle of parity. (ii) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in respect of similarly situated employees, this Court in Smt.Shanthalakshmi and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, W.P.No.40204/2012 connected with W.P.No.54553/2014, had granted the benefit of regularization and he therefore prays that these petitions also be disposed on similar terms. (iii) The learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand submitted that the judgment of this Court in Smt.Shanthalakshmi's case is not stricto sensu applicable to the petitioners, as the judgment in Smt.Shanthalakshmi can be distinguished on facts in the present cases. He contends that in Smt.Shanthalakshmi and others' case, all the petitioners were litigating from the date when Hon'ble Apex Court rendered judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others - (2006) 4 SCC 1 , while in the instant case, the petitioners intend to draw the benefit consequent to the judgment in Smt.Shanthalakshmi's case. He therefore submits that the judgment on Smt.Shanthalakshmi cannot be followed in the present cases to grant the relief. He also submits that the judgment in Smt.Shanthalakshmi's case is now challenged in Writ Appeal Nos.1624/2025 and 1669/2025. He contends that another writ petition, which was disposed off by Dharwad Bench is also challenged in Writ Appeal No.100647/2025. He therefore submits that the judgment on Smt.Shanthalakshmi cannot be followed in the present cases to grant the relief. He also submits that the judgment in Smt.Shanthalakshmi's case is now challenged in Writ Appeal Nos.1624/2025 and 1669/2025. He contends that another writ petition, which was disposed off by Dharwad Bench is also challenged in Writ Appeal No.100647/2025. He therefore contends that these petitions be kept pending till the consideration of the Writ Appeals by the Division Bench. 3. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 4. It is not in dispute that in Smt.Shanthalakshmi and others, who had approached this Court in W.P.No.40204/2012 C/w W.P.No.54553/2014 were pursuing their claims for regularization of their services in the Department of Sericulture. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering a coalesce of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court on matters concerning regularization of Group-C and D workers engaged on daily wages, quashed the endorsement issued therein and directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners therein. Therefore, the petitioners who are similarly placed as Smt.Shanthalakshmi and others are also entitled to the same benefit, notwithstanding, the fact that they were not litigating from the pre-Umadevi days. The petitioners herein and the petitioners in W.P.No.40204/2012 C/w W.P.No.54553/2014 are on the same pedestal. This Court cannot discriminate between the two sets of persons. 5. In that view of the matter, these petitions are disposed off on similar lines as held by this Court in W.P.No.40204/2012 connected with W.P.No.54553/2014. The benefits extended to the petitioners in W.P.No.40204/2012 and W.P.No.54553/2014 are also extended to the petitioners in these writ petitions. It is needless to mention that this is subject to the outcome of W.A.No.1624/2025 and W.A.No.1669/2025. 6. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, in all these petitions do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.