JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners for the following reliefs: (a) For quashing the letter No.-5083 dated 12.09.2014 (Annexure 11) issued by the Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranch, whereby and where under he has informed all the Deputy Commissioners and Deputy Development Commissioners in the State of Jharkhand that the salary of the employees of the District Rural Development Agencies are to be paid as per the chart appended to the said letter erroneously mentioned that the entry pay is the initial pay of the pay scale irrespective of grade pay and thereby caused substantial reduction in the gross salary petitioners. (b) For a direction upon the concerned respondents-authorities to continue making payment of salary to the petitioners in terms of resolution dated 28.02.2009 contained in Resolution No-660/F (Annexure-6) and pay to the petitioners the salary which includes the aggregate of the entry pay, grade pay and dearness allowance at the rate at par with other Government employees. 2. Mr. R.N. Sahay, Ld. Sr. Counsel representing the petitioners draws attention of this Court towards the order dated 08.12.2014 and submits that the case of these petitioners has been narrated in this order. For brevity, the order dated 08.12.2014 is extracted hereinbelow: “The grievances of the petitioners are that they have entered the services of District Rural Development Agency pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 2011 and their contractual remunerations are guided by the provision of the District Rural Development Agency (Appointment, Service condition and Responsibility) Rule,2009, Annexure-1, more specifically Rule 9 thereof. The contractual remuneration of the petitioners were fixed in terms of Rule 9 and Finance Department Circular dated 30.4.2009 as also dated 25.3.2009. By the impugned order at Annexure-11 dated 12.9.2014 , the entry level pay of the petitioners have been reduced though they are in the same Grade pay as applicable for the individual posts which they are holding, in terms of the Finance Department Resolution dated 28.2.2009, Annexure 6. This would be to their serious prejudice and disadvantage. Therefore, they have been compelled to move this Court. Counsel for the respondent-State is allowed four weeks time to seek instruction and file counter affidavit in the matter. This would be to their serious prejudice and disadvantage. Therefore, they have been compelled to move this Court. Counsel for the respondent-State is allowed four weeks time to seek instruction and file counter affidavit in the matter. During pendency of the writ petition, no reduction of pay pursuant to the impugned order at Annexure 11 be effected on the undertaking given by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that if they do not succeed in their prayer made in the writ petition, they will have to refund the amount paid in excess. on that count. List this case after four weeks on 15th January, 2015” 3. Learned Sr. Counsel further draws attention of this Court towards the order dated 22.03.2024 and submits that by this order the petitioners were directed to file specific affidavit with regard to claim of the petitioners on the ground of discrimination. For brevity, the order dated 22.03.2024 is quoted hereinbelow: “Petitioners are working on different posts in D.R.D.A. It has been submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that 22 persons had moved this Court for enhancing their Dearness Allowance and Travelling Allowance. It has been further argued that a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents, from perusal of which it appears that out of 22 persons 18 persons have already been granted Dearness Allowance @ 197% and only 4 persons have been denied the said benefits. Respondents are directed to file specific affidavit as to why this discriminatory approach has been taken by the respondents in granting the benefits of Dearness Allowances to its employees. List this case on 01.05.2024. I.A. No. 5560 of 2023 stands closed” 4 . He further submits that the only issue which remains pending in this case is as to whether the respondents are entitled to discriminate these petitioners with other persons because initially there were 22 persons who were similarly situated and out of 22, 18 employees were given the benefits; however these petitioners have been left out; as such, on the ground of parity the respondents may be directed to take a decision in the matter and give the same relief to these petitioners as their cases are same and similar with those 18 persons. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on merits, submits that the petitioners are claiming two benefits one is Dearness Allowance of 196 persons and also other benefit which is not possible; however he fairly submits that if the case of these petitioners will be same and similar with that of other similarly situated persons; then their grievances can be settled. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ application stands disposed of by directing the Petitioners to file consolidated representation annexing all the documents and giving details of other similarly situated persons to the 2 nd Respondent within a period of one month. The moment, the 2 nd Respondent will receive the representation, he shall look into the matter and verify the records of the case and take a decision by passing a reasoned and specific order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of Representation and production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying; if the case of these petitioners are same and similar with other similarly situated persons, the similar benefit may be extended to them within a further period of 4 weeks. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Pending I.As., if any, stand(s) closed.