IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1441 of 2009 NITYA NAND PANDEY S/O SHRI CHIRANJIVI PANDEY R/O MOHALLA- HABIBPURA, P.O. & P.S.- SOH SARAI, DISTT.- NALANDA. … Appellant/ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., VISHWESWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTH BIHAR WING, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., VISHWESWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, EAST BIHAR CIRCLE ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., BHAGALPUR 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., ROAD DIVISION, LAKHISARAI 7. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, BIHAR, PATNA. … Respondents/Respondents ---- For the appellant : Mr. Jugal Kishore, Sr. Adv. For the respondent : Mr. S. R. Sharan, A. C. to AAG XI ----------- 2 15.04.2010 Though this matter was listed for admission. yet On consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is finally heard. In this intra-court appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 8.10.2009 passed by learned single Judge in CWJC No. 12923 of 2009. It is submitted by Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned senior counsel for the appellant that the writ court has rejected the prayer of the appellant on the ground of delay 2 though similarly placed junior persons have been granted the benefit in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10128 of 2009 ( Ashok Kumar Roy vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) decided on 20th August 2009. He has further submitted that when the writ petitions were filed in the same year and the factual matrix is the same, there should not have been any distinction. Having heard Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. R. Sharan, Assistant Counsel to AAG XI for the State, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by learned single Judge and grant liberty to the appellant to submit a representation in the light of the order passed in CWJC No. 10128 of 2009 to the competent authority who would take a decision regard being had to the concept of parity. Be it noted, we have issued such a direction as an assertion has been made by Mr. Yugul Kishore that the said judgment has been conceded to and benefit has been extended. Needless to emphasize, when we have said that the matter shall be considered on the basis of parity, it 3 is open to the employer to adjudge the facet of parity. We may, however, add that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. This appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. kanchan (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)