D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has been suspended some time in 1993. It is alleged that a criminal case is pending out of the same prosecution. Mr. R. K. Kakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks parity with another person who was also involved in the transaction and was similarly suspended has since been reinstated after revoking the order of suspension. The petitioner has also applied for revocation of the order of suspension. The respondents did not decide the petitioners application for revocation of suspension. He submits that one of the co-delinquents has since been released from the order of suspension, on the doctrine of parity, the petitioner should also be released from the suspension. Therefore, he prays that the order of suspension should be quashed. ( 2 ) SHRI Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that there cannot be any concept of parity in respect of revocation of suspension if there are grounds for distinguishing the involvement of the persons in the charges levelled. It is for the employer to decide as to whom should be kept under suspension and in whose case the order of suspension could be revoked. It is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case Individually. According to him, the gravity of the petitioners involvement is greater than that of the person who has been released from the order of suspension. He further contends that the charges levelled against other person was examined and found that it is not necessary to continue him under suspension. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the continuity of the petitioner under suspension. Further he contends that in case if the application for revocation of the order of suspension of the petitioner has not been decided, the respondent would decide the same in accordance with law. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. ( 4 ) IN fact, there cannot be any concept of parity or there cannot be doctrine in the judicial process as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Chandresh Paswan v. State of U. P. and others, in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 10215 of 1998, decided on 26. 2. 1999. Inasmuch as there may be difference in the gravity of involvement of person. 2. 1999. Inasmuch as there may be difference in the gravity of involvement of person. It is dependent on the employer to decide who should be continued under suspension and who should not be. It is purely an administrative decision with which this Court cannot interfere. No doctrine of parity can be applied in such case. It is for the employer who should decide as to whether it is necessary to keep a person under suspension or not. In the present case, it is alleged that the charges have already been framed as against the petitioner. It is further alleged that the gravity of involvement and the charges levelled against the petitioner, in comparison with those levelled against the other person who has since been released from suspension, are such that the order of suspension as against the petitioner cannot be revoked. ( 5 ) BE that as it may, there is nothing to show that the respondents had ever considered such question in the light of submissions made by Mr. Verma to the extent as indicated above. There is nothing to show that the petitioners application has been decided. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said application has not been decided. ( 6 ) IN such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No. 1 to decide the petitioners application for revocation of suspension in accordance with law having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the observation made above with regard to doctrine of parity as early as possible within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. However, it may be noted that I have not entered into the merits of the case. The respondents shall be at liberty to decide the question according to their own wisdom and discretion depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 7 ) WITH these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to cost. .