Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. These cases have been referred for consideration by a Full Bench, by a Division Bench as per order dated 17.2.2012. In the various original petitions the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in favour of the respective applicants (respondents therein) are under challenge. O.P.(CAT) No.2486/2012 is filed by an applicant whose O.A. No.546/2010 was dismissed by the Tribunal.

2. The petitioners, except in O.P(CAT) No.2486/2012 are respectively the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short "BSNL") and its officers. The main legal issue raised is as to the true effect of the communication of the BSNL dated 27.6.2007 providing a weightage point System for assessment of indigent condition of the applicants for compassionate appointment. The scheme for appointment on compassionate basis is the one framed in the year 1998 and the Central Administrative Tribunal took the view that the applications in these cases having been filed before 27.6.2007, the original scheme of 1998 has to be applied, i.e. as on the date of death of the employee, without reference to the communication issued by the BSNL on 27.6.2007.

3. We reproduce hereinbelow the order of reference made by the Division Bench consisting of Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.

"Order of reference Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This bunch of Original Petitions filed against different decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Ernakulam Bench) raises a common issue of law. Therefore, they are dealt with and heard jointly.

2. Respondents in these matters, who were among the applicants before the Tribunal, had applied to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, for short, "BSNL", before 27.06.2007 for compassionate appointment.

3. The short issue that arises for consideration is as to the legal effect of the communication issued by BSNL to all the Heads of Telecom Circles on 27.06.2007 qua the official memorandum issued in 1998 by the Department of Personnel and Training in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, which provides for the scheme for compassionate appointment.

4. The Tribunal took the view that the application for compassionate appointment having been filed before 27.06.2007, the scheme of 1998 has to be applied without reference to the communication issued by the BSNL on 27.06.2007.

5. We heard the learned counsel for the establishment and the learned counsel for those who were the applicants before the tribunal.

6. The private respondents, the applicants before the Tribunal, are justified in relying on the decisions of this Court in WP(C) No.36025 of 2009 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. V. Tittin [2011 (4) KLT 409] to canvass for the position that this Court has stated that the scheme applicable on the date of the application for compassionate appointment has to apply in preference to any later scheme or modification.

7. The learned counsel for the establishment, the petitioner in this bunch of matters, points out that the aforesaid two decisions stand stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. She also points out that the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal had, essentially, taken a decision contrary to the contents of the orders impugned in these original petitions. She argues for the position that the precedents cited by the private respondents (applicants) require reconsideration, they not having laid the situational law correctly.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the employees, who were the applicants before the Tribunal, heavily relied on the aforesaid precedents and argued that the plea of the department is baseless, and further that, those precedents do not require reconsideration. It was pointed out that, merely because the Apex Court had stayed the precedents relied on by the employees, the precedential value of those judgments cannot be ignored by a bench of coequal jurisdiction.

9. Issuance of an order of stay of a judgment by a superior court does not depr