A.M. Sapre; CJ.:- 1. Heard Mr. R. Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the petitioners. 2. This is a writ petition filed by the Union of India under article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 3.9.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 244 of 2012. 3. By the impugned order, the Tribunal disposed of the original application filed by the respondents herein by passing the following order: “5. Learned counsel for both the parties agreed that in the present case directions on the same lines may be rendered. 6. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the materials placed before us and the precedents relied upon. It is stipulated in the OM dated 4.5.1987 vide para 7.2 as under: “7.2 Administrative Ministries administering any of the Contributory Provident Fund Rules, other than Contributory Provident Fund Rules (India), 1962 are also advised to issue similar orders in respect of CPF beneficiaries covered by those rules in consultation with the Department of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare.” 7. When the policy of the Government lays down certain principles to execute the decision in certain way, it should be done strictly in consonance with the guidelines given by the Government. Other methods of performances are necessarily forbidden. It appears that the mandate contained vide para 7.2 of the aforesaid OM dated 1.5.1987 was not taken care of. AS such, we, in the interest of justice, direct the Ministry of Water Resources to consult the issue of pensionary benefits in the light of the OM dated 1.5.1987 for the employees of the Brahmaputra Board with the Department of Pensions and Pensioner’s Welfare and thereafter take an appropriate decision in this regard within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.” 4. Mere perusal of the afore quoted order would go to show that the order sought to be impugned in this writ petition is an agreed order passed with the consent of both the parties to O.A. out of which this writ petition arises. 5. Mere perusal of the afore quoted order would go to show that the order sought to be impugned in this writ petition is an agreed order passed with the consent of both the parties to O.A. out of which this writ petition arises. 5. In a situation like the one, where the order sought to be impugned in a writ petition is an “agreed order”, then in our view it is not amenable to challenge in the higher forum, be that in appeal or in revision, much less in a writ petition under article 226 or/and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. We can safely rely upon the substantive law contained in section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure which does not permit filing of a first appeal against the judgment and decree passed with consent. 7. We are, thus, afraid, we can entertain this writ petition which is also filed against the agreed order. It is not entertain-able in the light of the embargo contained in section 96(3) of the CPC and several judicial precedents taking this view. 8. Even otherwise, having perused the eventual directions given by the Tribunal in the impugned order, we find that no case is made out to interfere in the said order. All that the Tribunal has done while disposing of the O.A. is to direct the Ministry of Water Resources to take an appropriate decision in the subject-matter of the case keeping in view certain Office Memorandum mentioned therein. In a case where no decision has yet been taken and where no rights of the parties are adjudicated, there does not arise any cause of action to challenge such order. 9. The aforesaid discussions, in our opinion, is more than sufficient to dismiss this writ petition as being totally devoid of merit. 10. As a consequence, this petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. No cost.