ORDER : The present petitions are directed against the order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for the sake of brevity), whereby, the Tribunal has allowed the applications based on its earlier order read with the subsequent decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and that of the Apex Court. 2. We have heard Mr.Shashikantha C., learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. The perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal interalia has observed as under: “‘The matter seems to be covered by several Benches decisions which finally went to the Hon’ble Apex Court in CC No.9986/2015 arising out of order dated 16.10.2014 in WP.No.16002/2014 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Union of India and Ors. Vs. K.V.Rama Raju and Ors. which both sides admit as similar.” (Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid shows that the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents before the Tribunal-petitioners herein did admit that the matters are similar. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners herein contended that it was a mistake on the part of the learned Advocate appearing for the Union of India since the other decisions of the other High Courts including the pendency of the matter before the Apex Court has not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal. 4. In our view, if the Tribunal has passed an order upon concession or by admission by petitioners, it would not lie in the mouth of the very party to challenge the said order, but the appropriate course would be to file review application by pointing out the relevant facts in accordance with law. 5. In view of the above, subject to the aforesaid observation, we do not find that the present petitions deserve to be entertained at this stage. Hence, writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.