-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 7921 OF 2005 Union of India & Others..... ... Petitioners. Versus D. R. Kakade and Others... ... Respondents. Mr. R. R. Shetty a/w Mr.Induprakash Tripathi i/by Mr. S. S.Sarkar for the Petitioners. Mr. S. P. Saxena for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : R. M. LODHA & CORAM : R. M. LODHA & CORAM : R. M. LODHA & NARESH H. PATIL, JJ. NARESH H. PATIL, JJ. NARESH H. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 25TH JULY, 2006. DATED : 25TH JULY, 2006. DATED : 25TH JULY, 2006. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : Heard Mr. Shetty, Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The Tribunal in the impugned order has noted that similarly placed employees as that of the original applicants (respondents herein) have been granted benefit in other units of defence in various judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Apex Court and that the present case is fully covered by these judgments. The Counsel for the petitioners sought to urge that the order of the Supreme Court came to be passed on the concession made by the Additional Solicitor General but the said concession is not in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and Law. We are -: 2 :- afraid the submission of the Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Similarly placed employees cannot be treated differently by the Government of India. The concession made by the Additional Solicitor General and applied to some employees has to be applicable to all similarly situated employees. 3. There is no flaw in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal justifying interference by this Court. Writ Petition is dismissed in limine. Sd/- (R. M. LODHA, J.) (R. M. LODHA, J.) (R. M. LODHA, J.) Sd/- (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)