JUDGMENT Heard Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents. The writ petition impugns the order dated 19 February 2016 passed by 2nd respondent and the demand notice dated 29 January 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, invited our attention to the order of the Supreme Court dated 31 March 2015 passed in Civil Appeal No.3254 of 2015 and batch, and submitted that the case of the petitioner is also covered by the said order. In short, he claims parity with the appellants before the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the concerned authority of the respondents is prepared to consider the petitioner's application afresh and if, she is entitled for parity, an appropriate order will be passed on her application dated 13 October 2015 afresh. By order dated 19 February 2016, the application of the petitioner dated 13 October 2015 has been rejected. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice: The order dated 19 February 2016 is set aside. The application of the petitioner dated 13 October 2015 is restored to the file. The respondents shall consider the application of the petitioner afresh, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the concerned authority along with copy of the order of the Supreme Court dated 31 March 2015 within a period of ten days from today. We hope and trust that the respondents, while considering the application of the petitioner afresh, shall take into consideration the order passed by the Supreme Court. All contentions on merits are kept open. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.