Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. The question that has come up for consideration in these cases whether the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. R. Swaminathan (1997) 7 S.C.C. 690 would have the effect of nullifying orders of Tribunal in O.A. 750/98, 762/98, 908/98, 912/98, 922/98 and other connected matters and some of which were confirmed by dismissing the special leave petitions. Respondents herein had approached Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench on earlier occasion and filed O.A. 342/93 and connected matters for stepping up of pay on par with their juniors. Applications such as O.A. 342/93, 337/93, 1134/93 etc. were allowed by the Tribunal against some of those orders the department took up the matter before the Apex Court and Special Leave Petitions were dismissed. Those orders were subsequently given effect to by the department and their pay was stepped up along with juniors and were given the arrears as well. However, finding that the Supreme Court had subsequently in R. Swaminathan's case (supra) held that stepping up of pay was not warranted in cases here juniors were drawing higher pay on account of circumstances like adhoc promotion etc. the department passed various orders canceling the stepping up of pay and ordered recovery of the amount already disbursed on the basis of the directions of the Tribunal in O.A. 342/93, 337/93 etc. Aggrieved by those orders respondents herein approached the Tribunal and filed O.A. 912/98 and other connected matters. It was contended that the decisions of the Tribunal in O.A. 342/93, 337/93 etc. have become final and since those decisions are intra-parties, on the strength of a subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court the binding decision on intra-parties cannot be set at naught. Contention raised by the applicants-respondents were allowed by the Tribunal and set aside the orders issued by the department, Aggrieved by those orders department has filed these writ petitions. When the matter came up for hearing we heard counsel on either side at length. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decision in Swaminathan's case (supra) is law declared by the Apex Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Consequently lower courts in India are bound to follow the decision of the Supreme Court. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decision in Swaminathan's case (supra) is law declared by the Apex Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Consequently lower courts in India are bound to follow the decision of the Supreme Court. Further it was also contended that under Article 142 of the Constitution of India Supreme Court may pass such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it and any such order shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India. Reference was also made to the decision of the Apex Court in Kausalya Devi v. IAO Aurangabad Air 1984 SC 892 Asst. Collector Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd, 1985 (1) SCC 260, Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd.v. Prem Heavy Engg. Works (P) Ltd., (1997) 6 SCC 450, C.N. Rudramurthy v. K. Barkathulia Khan (1998) 8 SCC 275 etc. Reference was also made to an unreported decision of a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 20260/2000 wherein identical issue raised in this case was considered by the Bench. 3. Counsel for the respondent however maintainted the stand that judgment intra-parte which has become final cannot be reopened on the basis of the subsequent Supreme Court decision. Counsel contended subsequent judgement of the Supreme Court in another batch of cases in which they were not parties could not adversely affect their right which stood determined by an earlier adjudication by the Tribunal confirmed by the Supreme Court in dismissing the special leave petitions. When an identical matter came up for consideration the Bombay High Court has taken the same view and held on the strength of decision in Swaminathan's case the settled decisions cannot be unsettled. Reference was made to the unreported decision of the Bombay High Court in W.A. 3054 of 1999. It was pointed out that the Special Leave Petition, CC 4223/01 filed against the said decision was dismissed by the Apex Court on 27-7-2001 4. Article 141 of the Constitution of India states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. As held by the Supreme Court in M.S.L. Patil, Asst. Article 141 of the Constitution of India states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. As held by the Supreme Court in M.S.L. Patil, Asst. Conservator of Forests, Solapur v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 11 SCC 361 that the general principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court is applicable to every person including those who were not parties to the order. But the question to be decided is whether subsequent decision of the Supreme Court would have the effect of unsettling the binding decision of the Tribunal and confirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the special leave petitions. We are of the view judgments intra-parties which have attained finality cannot be nullified and set at naught by subsequent decision of the Supreme Court eventhough issue involved was the same. It may be possible for the aggrieved parties to get earlier order reviewed in view of the Supreme Court decision. But the mere fact that Supreme Court has subsequently declared the law would not have the effect of taking away substratum of the earlier binding decision between the parties whether it is rendered by the Tribunal or the Supreme Court. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A. 20260/2000. We are in compete agreement with the decision of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition 3054 of 1999 which was confirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing CC 4223/2001. Under such circumstance we find no infirmity in the orders of the Tribunal which are impugned in these writ petitions. Writ petitions lack merit and the same are accordingly dismissed.