JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioners, who belong to Jharkhand Animal Husbandry Service Cadre from 60 to 65 years, in the light of the decision of the State of Jharkhand, dated 23.07.2011 issued by the Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand. Further prayer has been made to consider the case of the petitioner, Veterinary Officer (Doctor) at par with the General Duty Medical Officers (Allopathic Doctors), when the respondent-Government has enhanced their age of retirement from 60 to 65 years, the petitioner is also entitled for such benefit. 3. The fact of the case in brief is that the petitioner was appointed in the cadre of the unified Bihar Animal Husbandry Service on 05.01.1959 and at the time of appointment of the petitioner, the age of retirement of Government Servants in the State of Bihar was 58 years. The age of retirement of Officers of Health Service Cadre (Allopathic) and the officers working thereunder was also 58 years. Similarly, the age of retirement of Dentist and Dental Education Cadre was also the same. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand. In the year, 2004, the State of Jharkhand enhanced the retirement age of Government Servants from 58 to 60 years. Later on, the State of Bihar also enhanced the retirement age of Government Servants from 58 to 60 years. There was no difference in the age of retirement of the cadre of the petitioner and the officers of Health Services Cadre (Allopathic/Dentists). 4. It is case of the petitioner that the age of retirement of doctors of Allopathy in the State of Jharkhand has been enhanced by a decision taken by the State Govt. whereby the age of retirement of Doctors of Allopathy has been enhanced from 60 to 65 years vide Resolution No. 7 (A) Stha. 8-05/2008 283 (7A) dated 23.07.2011 read with Corrigendum as contained in Memo No.9/Chi.Maha-7-24-2012-79 (ii) dated 23.06.2012. whereby the age of retirement of Doctors of Allopathy has been enhanced from 60 to 65 years vide Resolution No. 7 (A) Stha. 8-05/2008 283 (7A) dated 23.07.2011 read with Corrigendum as contained in Memo No.9/Chi.Maha-7-24-2012-79 (ii) dated 23.06.2012. Pursuant to the said Resolution, the petitioner expected that the Government would take a similar decision in respect of the case of the petitioner too, but to his utter surprise, he was not treated at par with that of Medical Officers (Allopathic) regarding enhancement of age of retirement ignoring the fact that the State has given equal status to the doctors of both cadres. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has represented before the respondents to consider his case for enhancement of age of retirement from 60 to 65 years, but no heed was paid on such representation. Hence, the petitioner has been compelled to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances. 5. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the action of the respondent-authorities in not extending the benefits of enhanced age of retirement at par with Health Service Cadre (Allopathic), Dentist and Health Education Cadre in view of the Resolution dated 23.07.2011 is arbitrary, illegal and in colourable exercise of power. When the retirement age of the petitioner has been at par with that of Medical Officers and Dentists since beginning, the respondents have no unbridled power and jurisdiction to enhance the age of retirement of their counter-part from 60 to 65 years and not to do so in the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that when the minimum educational qualification, as also the mode of recruitment are one and the same of the cadre of the petitioner and that of Health Service Cadre (Allopathic and Dentist), the petitioner are also entitled for the benefit of enhancement of age from 60 to 65 years for retirement. There is no reason at all in the facts and circumstances of the present case that veterinarians are different from other classes of Medical and Dental practitioners for the purpose of denying the enhancement of their age of retirement, as the petitioner is treated at par with other those categories in the matter of pay scales, allowances etc. The petitioner and Doctors of Allopathic as also the Dentists are all registered Doctors and the nature of work and duties are same. The petitioner and Doctors of Allopathic as also the Dentists are all registered Doctors and the nature of work and duties are same. Veterinarians cannot be classified differently from other doctors. There cannot be any discrimination amongst the same class of employees. Learned counsel lastly argues that the issue involved in this writ petition is now no more res integra and this writ application is squarely covered by the order passed on 09.08.2018 by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S).No.5320 of 2017. Learned counsel further submits that this case may be disposed of in terms of orders passed in the aforesaid cases. 6. Per contra, no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that issues involved in this writ petition has already been decided by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S).No.5320 of 2017 vide order dated 09.08.2018 and if the case of the petitioner is found same and similar to the cases of the petitioners in W.P.(S).No.5320 of 2017, the present petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits. 7. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of in terms of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(S).No.5320 of 2017 and if the case of the present petitioner is found same and similar to the cases of the petitioners in W.P.(S).No.5320 of 2017, the present petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits. 8. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents-authorities to verify the factual aspects/ issues involved in the present writ petition vis-à-vis factual aspects/ issues involved in W.P.(S).No.5320 of 2017 and if the facts/ issues involved in the present writ petition is found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petition, the same benefits may be extended to the present writ petitioner also, in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner’ case is turned down for one or other reasons, same shall be communicated to the petitioner, within a further period of two weeks. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.