(1) LEAVE granted. (2) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. (3) THE question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court committed an error in denying arrears of pay to the appellant S.M. Mansoor while it granted such relief to the other petitioner Md. Ali. (4) THE thrust of the submission of Shri P.S. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant was that the appellant and Md. Ali were both placed in similar situation and the case pleaded by them in the writ petition was similar. Indeed, both of them were proceeded against on similar charges and were visited with the same order of punishment of stoppage of increments. In the case of Md. Ali the High Court quashed the punishment order, whereas in the case of the appellant the State Government itself recalled the order of punishment. Thereafter both the persons were given promotion to the higher posts but denied arrear pay. Faced with the situation they jointly filed the writ petition which was disposed of by the impugned order. (5) THE further submission of Shri Mishra is that neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench gave any specific reason for making a distinction between the case of Md. Ali and that of the appellant. (6) THE contention of Shri B.B. Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents on the other hand is that Md. Ali was given arrear pay in pursuance of the directions of the High Court and since there was no such specific direction in favour of the appellant the relief was not granted to him. He further contends that no other employee of the Department getting retrospective promotion has been given arrear pay from the date of such retrospective promotion. (7) ON a perusal of the records we find ample substance in the contention raised by Shri P.S. Mishra. From the materials on record it is clear that the case of the two employees i.e. the appellant and Md. Ali were similar on all material aspects. The learned Single Judge after discussing the case issued a direction to the Food Commissioner as well as the Finance Commissioner to examine the matter regarding claim of arrear pay to Md. From the materials on record it is clear that the case of the two employees i.e. the appellant and Md. Ali were similar on all material aspects. The learned Single Judge after discussing the case issued a direction to the Food Commissioner as well as the Finance Commissioner to examine the matter regarding claim of arrear pay to Md. Ali (Petitioner 1 in the WP) and pass a fresh order, but so far as the appellant (Petitioner 2 in the writ petition) is concerned, the learned Judge simply declined to issue similar direction in view of Finance Department Circular No. 2074 dated 14-4-1985. No discussion was made and no reason was stated in support of the order so far as the appellant was concerned. The Division Bench declined to interfere in the matter again without giving any specific reason for making a distinction in the case of the appellant. (8) CONSIDERING the close similarity in the cases of the two employees and the entire proceeding having been taken on similar facts and situation we are of the view that the High Court erred in declining the appellant similar relief as in the case of Md. Ali. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the High Court so far as the appellant is concerned, are set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant for grant of arrear pay from the relevant date and pass similar orders as in the case of Md. Ali. This order is passed considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and will not be used as a precedent for other cases. There will be no order as to costs.