JUDGMENT : H.K. Sema, J. All these appeals, arise out of the similar facts, are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity, we take facts from C.A. Nos. 7340-7341/2003. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: 2. The respondents Roshan Singh and three others were working as Co-operative Supervisors under the Co-operative Department. According to the relevant "Rules the post of Co-operative Supervisor is a non-Governmental post. They retired from service on 31.5.1996, 31.1.1996, 31.1.1997 and 31.1.1996 respectively. They filed Writ Petition No.3947(SS) of 1997 seeking promotion to the post of Co-operative 3. 2 Inspector, Group-II(Governmental Post) with effect from 7.4.1978 on the ground that on the same date the persons who were juniors to them had been promoted. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by an order dated 24.8.2000 following the decision rendered in Bengali Prasad Sharma's case decided on 3.5.1995 in Writ Petition No.13240(SS) of 1990. In Bengali Prasad's case he had filed Writ Petition No.13240(SS) of 1990 while he was in service. It is also not disputed fact that Bengali Prasad was holding the post of Co-operative Inspector, Group-II which is a Governmental post while he filed the writ petition. In that view of the matter the High Court by its order dated 3.5.1995 allowed the writ petition filed by Bengali Prasad directing that he should be given notional promotion with effect from 7.4.1978 and he would be entitled pensionary benefits from 7.4.1978. Learned Single Judge has committed a grave error in law by equating the case of the respondents Roshan Singh and three others with the case of Bengali Prasad. It is now well settled principle of law that unequal cannot be treated equally. As already stated the respondents Roshan Singh and three others were not holding the post of Co-operative Inspector, Group-II which is a Governmental post when they retired from services, therefore, the High Court was not justified in allowing writ petition and granting the pensionary benefits with effect from 7.4.1978 as has been done in Bengali Prasad's case. 4. Secondly, the respondents filed the writ petition in July, 1997 after they had retired from services. Even from this count they could not have been granted any 3 relief sought for in the writ petition. 4. Secondly, the respondents filed the writ petition in July, 1997 after they had retired from services. Even from this count they could not have been granted any 3 relief sought for in the writ petition. The Division Bench of the High Court also committed a grave error of law and facts by confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, without assigning any reason. Civil Appeal Nos.7340-7341 and 7315-7316 of 2003 5. In the result these appeals deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed and the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are quashed and set aside. 6. These appeals are allowed and the writ petition filed by the respondents stands dismissed. However, the parties are asked to bear their own costs. Civil Appeal Nos.7317 and 7319 of 2003 7. Consequently, these appeals filed by the respondents are dismissed with no order as to costs.