ORDER :

1. This review petition is filed to review the order in writ petition no. 43222 of 2018, dated 24-01-2019 passed by this Court.

2. To refresh the issue involved in the case, it is worthwhile to note few facts which drew the applicant-respondent herein (for short “the applicant”) to invoke the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench.

3. The applicant while working as a Superintendent-Executive, National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), Field Operations Division, was absorbed in the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited (NHPC Ltd.) a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) of the Government of India, with effect from 01-05-1982, with pro-rata pensionary benefits for the service rendered in the Government of India. As per the extant rules, he was allowed to commute his entire (100%) pension. However, in compliance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 15-12-1995 in WP (C) No. 11855 of 1985, as conveyed vide Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare O.M. No. 4/3/86-P and PW (D), dated 30-09-1996, his 1/3rd pension was restored from 06-07-1999 i.e. after 15 years from the date of 100 % commutation of pension.

4. The grievance of applicant is, from 30-06-1994, the date from which the applicant had retired from service, till 06-07-1999, the date from which the applicant's 1/3rd pension was restored, he was not paid benefits, such as Interim Relief I and II, dearness relief and other benefits, like the difference in revised pension, as in the case of other Central Government pensioners, though he is eligible for these benefits, being similarly and identically situated as those persons who were given the relief. The applicant seems to have made a representation dated 05-12-2016, to the petitioner-Department, and as they did not move in the matter and no decision was forthcoming, he filed OA No. 326 of 2017, which was disposed of at the stage of admission, with the following directions:-

..........to consider the representation already submitted and also treat this OA as a representation and consider the issues raised by the applicant in the light of the judicial pronouncements cited by him. The respondents shall pass reasoned and speaking orders thereon and communicate the same to the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear at this stage the Tribunal has not entered into the merits of the case. No order as to costs.

5. Pursuant to the above order, the claim of the applicant was considered and rejected. The rejection order is once again challenged by the applicant in OA No. 839 of 2017. The Tribunal by the order impugned in the writ petition, disposed of the OA by following its earlier orders passed in OA No. 1333 of 2012, OA No. 1267 of 2015 and OA No. 1291 of 2015, where the Tribunal had directed to release the dearness relief and interim relief on the full basic pension from the date on which the applicants therein took retirement from the Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) till the date of restoration of their 1/3rd pension. Those decisions were rendered relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V. Sundara Rajan vs. Union of India, 2004 (4) SCC 469, Accountant General of Orissa vs. R. Ramamurthy, 2006 (12) SCC 557 and Division Bench judgment of this Court in WP No. 21824 of 2010.

6. The order of the Tribunal is assailed in the instant writ petition by the petitioner-Department, among other grounds, on the ground that the ratio in the judgments in P.V. Sundara Rajan (supra) and R. Ramamurthy 2006 (12) SCC 557 (supra) was misquoted by the Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 21824 of 2010 while allowing the case of a similar nature. The decision in WP No. 21824 of 2010 was relied by the Tribunal in batch of OAs and following the order passed in the said batch of OAs, allowed the claim of the application in the present OA and that Review petition filed against the decision in W.P. No. 21824 of 2010 is pending.

7. This