JUDGMENT : 1. Delay of 54 days in filing of the appeal is condoned and I.A. No.303 of 2018 is allowed and disposed of. 2. Even though the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have been served, none appears for them. 3. Keeping in view the fact that this appeal has to be allowed and the matter remanded back for re-consideration before the learned Writ Court, we proceed to decide the issue in question. 4. The dispute in question raised in the writ petition by respondent Nos.1 to 4 were that the benefit of A.G.P. of Rs.9000/- per month has been denied to them and challenging the denial the writ petition in question was filed. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 5.12.2017, it was pointed out to the learned Writ Court that the issue has been considered with regard to the employees of the appellant institute on 7.8.2015 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.4873 of 2014 (Dr. Anshuman Singh & Anr. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.), 2016 (1) P.L.J.R. 219 and taking note of the same the learned Writ Court remanded the matter back to the appellant for re-consideration. However, having heard Shri Giri, learned Senior Counsel, and on going through the record, we find that in the case of Dr. Anshuman Singh (supra) after re-consideration the appellant had rejected the matter and the issue was pending consideration again at the instance of Dr. Anshuman Singh in C.W.J.C. No.11189 of 2016 (Dr. Anshuman Singh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.). 5. Shri Giri argues that once on re-consideration in the case of Dr. Anshuman Singh (supra), the prayer was rejected by the institute, the issue should have been decided on merit along with the pending writ petition of Dr. Anshuman Singh and no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter back to the appellant for re-consideration. He, therefore, makes a prayer for allowing this appeal, restoration of the writ petition and its hearing along with the case of Dr. Anshuman Singh. We find the aforesaid prayer to be reasonable and acceptable as the Department has already considered the prayer of the employees identically situated and has rejected it, as is evident from the orders passed in the case of Dr. Anshuman Singh. We find the aforesaid prayer to be reasonable and acceptable as the Department has already considered the prayer of the employees identically situated and has rejected it, as is evident from the orders passed in the case of Dr. Anshuman Singh (supra) and the same is sub judice before a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.11189 of 2016. 6. Taking note of all these factors, we allow this appeal, quash the order dated 5.12.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No.11100 of 2014, restore the aforesaid application to its original file and request the learned Writ Court to decide it along with the pending writ petition of Dr. Anshuman Singh i.e. C.W.J.C. No.11189 of 2016 at an early date.