ORDER : 1. This review petition is filed to review the order in writ petition no. 43222 of 2018, dated 24-01-2019 passed by this Court. 2. To refresh the issue involved in the case, it is worthwhile to note few facts which drew the applicant-respondent herein (for short “the applicant”) to invoke the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. 3. The applicant while working as a Superintendent-Executive, National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), Field Operations Division, was absorbed in the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited (NHPC Ltd.) a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) of the Government of India, with effect from 01-05-1982, with pro-rata pensionary benefits for the service rendered in the Government of India. As per the extant rules, he was allowed to commute his entire (100%) pension. However, in compliance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 15-12-1995 in WP (C) No. 11855 of 1985, as conveyed vide Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare O.M. No. 4/3/86-P and PW (D), dated 30-09-1996, his 1/3rd pension was restored from 06-07-1999 i.e. after 15 years from the date of 100 % commutation of pension. 4. The grievance of applicant is, from 30-06-1994, the date from which the applicant had retired from service, till 06-07-1999, the date from which the applicant's 1/3rd pension was restored, he was not paid benefits, such as Interim Relief I and II, dearness relief and other benefits, like the difference in revised pension, as in the case of other Central Government pensioners, though he is eligible for these benefits, being similarly and identically situated as those persons who were given the relief. The applicant seems to have made a representation dated 05-12-2016, to the petitioner-Department, and as they did not move in the matter and no decision was forthcoming, he filed OA No. 326 of 2017, which was disposed of at the stage of admission, with the following directions:- ..........to consider the representation already submitted and also treat this OA as a representation and consider the issues raised by the applicant in the light of the judicial pronouncements cited by him. The respondents shall pass reasoned and speaking orders thereon and communicate the same to the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear at this stage the Tribunal has not entered into the merits of the case. No order as to costs. 5. The respondents shall pass reasoned and speaking orders thereon and communicate the same to the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear at this stage the Tribunal has not entered into the merits of the case. No order as to costs. 5. Pursuant to the above order, the claim of the applicant was considered and rejected. The rejection order is once again challenged by the applicant in OA No. 839 of 2017. The Tribunal by the order impugned in the writ petition, disposed of the OA by following its earlier orders passed in OA No. 1333 of 2012, OA No. 1267 of 2015 and OA No. 1291 of 2015, where the Tribunal had directed to release the dearness relief and interim relief on the full basic pension from the date on which the applicants therein took retirement from the Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) till the date of restoration of their 1/3rd pension. Those decisions were rendered relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V. Sundara Rajan vs. Union of India, 2004 (4) SCC 469, Accountant General of Orissa vs. R. Ramamurthy, 2006 (12) SCC 557 and Division Bench judgment of this Court in WP No. 21824 of 2010. 6. The order of the Tribunal is assailed in the instant writ petition by the petitioner-Department, among other grounds, on the ground that the ratio in the judgments in P.V. Sundara Rajan (supra) and R. Ramamurthy 2006 (12) SCC 557 (supra) was misquoted by the Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 21824 of 2010 while allowing the case of a similar nature. The decision in WP No. 21824 of 2010 was relied by the Tribunal in batch of OAs and following the order passed in the said batch of OAs, allowed the claim of the application in the present OA and that Review petition filed against the decision in W.P. No. 21824 of 2010 is pending. 7. This Court by order dated 24-01-2019, while observing that adjudication of the issues by the Tribunal in granting the relief to the applicant was on the basis of the decided cases of similarly situated persons in OA Nos. 7. This Court by order dated 24-01-2019, while observing that adjudication of the issues by the Tribunal in granting the relief to the applicant was on the basis of the decided cases of similarly situated persons in OA Nos. 1333 of 2012, 1267 of 2015 and 1224 of 2015; that there was no error or illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction or any failure of justice which could be treated as manifest miscarriage of justice and does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, 1997 (3) SCC 261 , refused to entertain and interfere with the order of the Tribunal and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. 8. This review petition is filed on the ground that there is no justification for allowing the relief, such as, dearness allowance to the applicant for the period i.e. from the date of his retirement till the date of his restoration of his 1/3rd commuted pension and the ratio in the judgments in P.V. Sundara Rajan (supra) and R. Ramamurthy 2006 (12) SCC 557 (supra) was not properly applied to the facts of the case by the Division Bench of this Court which decided the WP No. 21824 of 2010 while allowing the case of a similar nature which was followed by the Tribunal in allowing the batch of OAs including the present OA which is subject matter of the writ petition. 9. We have heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the review petitioners and the learned counsel for the applicant-respondent. 10. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has taken us through the judgment in P.V. Sundara Rajan (supra) and would contend that there is clear error in appreciating the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V. Sundara Rajan. According to learned counsel, Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected prayer to grant Dearness Relief and Interim Relief for the period covering 100 % commutation. 11. On the contrary, learned counsel for the applicant-respondent contended that the issue in this case is squarely covered by the decision in P.V. Sundara Rajan (supra) as well as the order of the Division Bench in WP No. 21824 of 2010. 11. On the contrary, learned counsel for the applicant-respondent contended that the issue in this case is squarely covered by the decision in P.V. Sundara Rajan (supra) as well as the order of the Division Bench in WP No. 21824 of 2010. He would submit that the order passed in OA No. 1224 of 2015 was affirmed by this Court by order dated 31-08-2017 in WP No. 19937 of 2017. In view thereof, the order passed in the batch of OAs has become final and was also implemented. He would submit that a pensioner is entitled to Dearness Relief and Interim Relief for the entire period notwithstanding 100 % commutation. He would therefore submit that no ground is made to review the decision. According to learned counsel, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. 12. To appreciate the respective contentions, it is necessary to consider the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the law declared therein. 13. The issue in that case is at paragraph 10, which reads as follows:- “10. One of main grievance urged in the applications is that all Central Government pensioners are entitled to dearness relief on sanctioned basic pension as revised from time to time, regardless of whether they have commuted any part of their pension. It has been claimed that the benefit is to be calculated at applicable rates on the amount of pension including the amount of commuted pension but these benefits have been restored to the petitioners only partly at the notified rates on one-third of the notional pension. It has been submitted that they are at par with other Central Government pensioners.” 14. Apropos to the facts of the case present, the applicable paragraph is 14, which reads as follows:- “14. The parity claimed by Lt. Col. Malhotra and other absorbers who had commuted 100% pension, in our view, is entirely misplaced. The contention that what is commuted or given up is an amount and not the right to receive pension or right to receive post-commutation revision and attendant benefits including dearness relief on the gross entitled pension on the dates they were granted to other Government pensioners, is only illusory. The decision in the case of State of T.N. vs. V.S. Balakrishnan, (1994) Supp. 3 SCC 204 on which reliance was placed by Mr. The decision in the case of State of T.N. vs. V.S. Balakrishnan, (1994) Supp. 3 SCC 204 on which reliance was placed by Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate, has no applicability to the point in issue. Those who commuted 100% pension continue to remain non-pensioners till their pension is restored. In Welfare Association case (supra), persons who commuted the full pension and who will not be given any monthly pension by deeming monthly pension to have been reduced to nil has been treated as a separate category. Those who commute 100% pension are not entitled to the benefit of dearness relief on full pension or other benefits as claimed herein. We also do not find any discrimination in so far as this class is concerned.” (Emphasis added) 15. It is seen from the decision in WP No. 21824 of 2010 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, the above ratio was misquoted, by relying on head note in the journal. The head note did not correctly condense purport of paragraph 11 of the judgment. Paragraph 11 of the judgment, as it stands, reads as follows:- “11. The dearness relief on pension has been granted to pensioners to compensate them for the erosion in the value of money due to rise in the cost of living. It seems clear that the Government has permitted to the applicants dearness relief calculated only on one-third part of the pension restored while in case of other pensioners, the dearness relief is calculated on full pension including the commuted part of pension. As already noticed, the applicants are to be treated on the same footing as other Central Government employees in so far as the question of restoration of one-third of commuted pension is concerned and are entitled to the benefits as given in Common Cause case. In this respect, it would also be useful to notice that the ‘pension’ as defined in Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 does not include dearness relief. Rule 3(1)(o) reads as under: “3(1)(o) ‘Pension’ includes gratuity except when the term pension is used in contradistinction to gratuity, but does not include dearness relief.” 16. In this respect, it would also be useful to notice that the ‘pension’ as defined in Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 does not include dearness relief. Rule 3(1)(o) reads as under: “3(1)(o) ‘Pension’ includes gratuity except when the term pension is used in contradistinction to gratuity, but does not include dearness relief.” 16. It is to be seen that in the order passed in WP No. 19937 of 2017 and OA No. 1224 of 2015, no ratio is laid down, except noting that the order passed in the batch of OAs have not been questioned and that the Department cannot be selective in pursuing litigation for different employees. Further, the petitioner-Department in WP No. 19937 of 2017 is different from the petitioner-Department herein and the order passed would bind that Department and respondent cannot contend that the order passed in the batch of OAs has become final. 17. The applicant in this case has commuted his 100% pension and therefore not entitled to dearness relief on full pension from the date of commutation of his pension till the date of restoration of his 1/3rd pension in the light of ratio laid down in P.V. Sundara Rajan (supra). The decision in R. Ramamurthy (supra), arose out of a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP No. 8532 of 2002, wherein the Division Bench expressed the view that in a case where an employee had communed 1/3rd and even lesser portion, the pro-rata commuted portion has to be deducted from the basic pension to arrive at restorable pension, but however, he will get dearness relief, interim relief, etc. on full basic pension. The Supreme Court affirmed said decision of the Division Bench. However, it is seen that the said decision relates to commutation of 1/3rd pension and not commutation of 100% pension as in this case and, therefore, the decision in the above case is not applicable to the facts of the case. In nutshell, a Central Government servant who had drawn 100% lump-sum in lieu of pension consequent upon his absorption in PSU and restored full pension after 15 years from the date of receipt of lump-sum amount, the benefits of Dearness relief, interim reliefs and other benefits etc. In nutshell, a Central Government servant who had drawn 100% lump-sum in lieu of pension consequent upon his absorption in PSU and restored full pension after 15 years from the date of receipt of lump-sum amount, the benefits of Dearness relief, interim reliefs and other benefits etc. become admissible on restoration of his pension and that there can be no legitimate claim for any such benefits (DA & IRs.) for the period between the date of 100 % commutation after retirement from the Central Government service and restoration of pension in terms of the official memorandum issued by the Government of India. 18. The Tribunal while deciding the OA No. 839 of 2017 also did not notice the core distinction in paragraphs 11 and 14 of the P.V. Sundara Rajan (supra). Further, though the petitioner-Department contended that the judgment in WP No. 21824 of 2010 has not attained finality inasmuch as a review petition has been filed therein, the Tribunal brushed aside the said contention on the ground that no orders were passed in the said review petition. 19. The decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 21824 of 2010 on which the Tribunal relied on and granted relief in batch of OAs including the present OA, which is subject matter of the writ petition and the order under review, are to be treated as per-incuriam as the Division Bench which decided WP No. 21824 of 2010 did not consider the subtle distinction as contained in paragraphs 11 and 14 of P.V. Sundara Rajan's case and ignored to consider the relevant paragraph 14 which applies to the facts of the case and covers the issue in the present OA. 20. It is a settled rule that if a decision has been given per incuriam the Court can ignore it. Per incuriam are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some statutory provision or of some authority binding on the Court concerned, so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based, is found, on that account, to be demonstrably wrong (See Morelle vs. Wakeling, (1955) 1 All ER 708). The Division Bench which decided WP No. 21824 of 2010 did not consider the relevant law laid down in paragraph 14 of the P.V. Sundara Rajan's case which is law applicable in respect of employees who commute 100% pension, but granted relief by relying on paragraph 11 which applies in respect of employees who commute 1/3rd pension, as such the decision in WP No. 21824 of 2010 is contrary to the law down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 14 of the judgment in P.V. Sundara Rajan and thus is per-incuriam. This Court also not noticed paragraph 14 of the judgment while dismissing the writ petition by the order under review which is an error apparent on the face of record and the same is liable to be recalled. 21. The principles for interference in exercise of review jurisdiction are well settled by a catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts. Rule of law is the basis for evaluation of all decisions. The supreme quality of the Rule of law is fairness and legal certainty. The principle of legality occupies a central plan in the Rule of law. (See Epuru Sudhakar vs. Govt. of A.P. 2006 (8) SCC 161 ). It is settled proposition of law that power of review can be exercised in case of discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and for any other sufficient reason. A decision or judgment can be per incuriam if any provision in a statute, rule or regulation, was not brought to the notice of the Court. A decision or judgment can also be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a co-equal or larger Bench; or if the decision of a High Court is not in consonance with the views of Apex Court. (See Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 623 ). 22. As noticed above, in the instant case there is an error apparent on the face of the record which needs to be corrected to secure the ends of justice. The review petition is allowed accordingly and the order under review is recalled. (See Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 623 ). 22. As noticed above, in the instant case there is an error apparent on the face of the record which needs to be corrected to secure the ends of justice. The review petition is allowed accordingly and the order under review is recalled. Since both the counsel in the writ petition argued on the merits of the matter and the only issue is as to the entitlement of the dearness allowance, IRs. etc. by the applicant, which reliefs cannot be granted in the given fact situations, as a necessary corollary the writ petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.