ORDER 1. By this writ appeal under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 appellant has challenged the order of learned Single Judge dated 8.5.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 10009/18 whereby while issuing notice in writ petition, the learned Single Judge has denied ex parte interim relief. 2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that in identical writ petitions by similarly placed other employees the interim relief has been granted but without considering the same, the ex-parte interim relief has been denied to appellant. He further submits that interim relief finally affects the right of appellant because by the impugned order salary of appellant is sought to be reduced. 3. As against this learned counsel for State has opposed the writ appeal but has not disputed that identically placed persons have been granted relief in other writ petitions. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that appellant ( petitioners in the writ petition) were appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade II and were later on absorbed as Adhyapak and Varishth Adhyapak. They have filed writ petition aggrieved with the circular dated 7th July 2017 and consequential orders dated 22.8.2017 and 23.8.2017 whereby directions have been issued for pay fixation in the 6th Pay Commission. The grievance of appellants is that impugned pay fixation results into reduction of salary of appellants. 5. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order while issuing notice in the writ petition has refused to grant ex parte interim relief by observing that prayer for grant of interim relief will be considered only after filing the reply by the respondents. 6. The grievance of appellants is that impugned pay fixation results into reduction of salary of appellants. 5. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order while issuing notice in the writ petition has refused to grant ex parte interim relief by observing that prayer for grant of interim relief will be considered only after filing the reply by the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for appellant referring to order dated 27.11.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 20167/17, in the matter of Dileep Raghuvanshi v. State of MP of Gwalior Bench; order dated 8.2.2018 passed by the Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 3367/18 in the matter of Sheetal Prasad Patel v. State of MP; order dated 2.4.2018 passed by the Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 3770/18 in the matter of Preetam Singh Ahirvar v. State of M.P.; order dated 26.9.2017 passed by the Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 14611/17; as also order dated 24.4.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 8839/18 of Indore Bench, has submitted that in identical writ petitions, the interim relief has been granted. He has also submitted that in all these writ petitions identically placed persons have been granted ex-parte interim relief and that state is likely to take considerable time in filing the reply in the present case which will amount to denial of interim relief to appellants. 7. The aforesaid submission that identically placed persons have been granted ex parte interim relief by Principal Seat as also the Gwalior and Indore Benches has not been disputed by learned counsel for State. 8. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, and detailed reasons which have been assigned in the order dated 26.9.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 14611/17 as also considering the issue of parity, we are of the opinion that present appellant is also entitled to same treatment and he is also entitled to interim relief at this stage. 9. 8. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, and detailed reasons which have been assigned in the order dated 26.9.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 14611/17 as also considering the issue of parity, we are of the opinion that present appellant is also entitled to same treatment and he is also entitled to interim relief at this stage. 9. Hence the writ appeal is allowed and order dated 8.5.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 10009/18 relating to denial of ex parte interim relief is set aside by directing that till the next date of hearing before the writ Court, the respondents will not reduce salary of appellants on the basis of circular/orders impugned in the writ petition and further continuation of this interim order will be subject to filing of the reply by the State and stand taken therein. 10. Writ appeal is accordingly disposed off.