Judgment :- K. Chandru, J. The Union of India along with its subordinate Officer, filed this writ petition, challenging the order dated 12. 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 1367 of 2000. 2. Heard the arguments of Mr. V.G. Sureshkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R. Rengaramanujam, learned counsel appearing for the contesting second respondent and perused the records. 3. The Tribunal found that the second respondent’s substantive post being Driver and though he was given official promotion as Senior Fuel Inspector at the time of retirement i.e. on 30.9.1981, he was holding the said post on ad hoc basis only. The claim of the second respondent was that during the period of 1973-74, he was only in the category of Driver and hence, he was entitled for running allowance. Thereafter, he was promoted as Craw Controller. Since it is a stationary post, he is entitled to the fixation of pay taking into account of the running allowance of 75% during the period in which he has worked as Driver B before taking up the post of Crew Controller instead of 40%. Whereas the petitioners-Railways have fixed the pay by taking into account 40% of running allowance. 4. The Tribunal, while quashing the order dated 14. 2000, directed the petitioners to revise the pay scale of the second respondent in the post of Driver-B and consequently refix the pay of the second respondent in the promotion post and regulate all his retiral benefits based upon such revision/refixation of pay and the second respondent shall be entitled to arrears of pension arising out of such refixation of pay/revision of pension. 5. Mr. V.G. Sureshkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took pains to explain the Rules, which contemplate only 40% of the running allowance and the decision of the Supreme Court may not directly apply to the case of the second respondent. 6. However, the second respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 8. 2002 and contended that the decision of the Supreme Court will clearly apply as it was made applicable to the persons retired from 1. 1973 to 12. 1988. Therefore, inasmuch as the second respondent was not regularly promoted to any stationary post and he was holding the post only on ad hoc basis, he was entitled for 75% running allowance. 7. 1973 to 12. 1988. Therefore, inasmuch as the second respondent was not regularly promoted to any stationary post and he was holding the post only on ad hoc basis, he was entitled for 75% running allowance. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that the second respondent cannot have the double advantage of earlier 40% being taken into account for pay fixation in favour of the second respondent and now by virtue of the Tribunal’s order, another 75% protection to be given to him. It is an erroneous reading of the Tribunal’s order. The Tribunal only held that the running allowance of 75% to be taken into account and did not hold that the second respondent is eligible for double benefit. 8. We do not think that this Court could interfere with the categorical findings rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The apprehension that this may be quoted in future is unwarranted. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. Considering the fact that the second respondent is already 80 years old, we direct the petitioners to comply with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. is also dismissed. No costs.