JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The instant appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 04.11.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4929 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 02.02.2016 by which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected and further directed the appellants to take decision afresh in light of discussions made in W.P.(S) No. 2147 of 2018. 3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition which require to be referred herein, read as under :- The father of the writ petitioner namely, Late E. Munnu Swamy, while working under the respondents, died in harness on 03.02.1984. The mother of the writ petitioner namely, Smt. Rajni Amal was appointed on compassionate ground on 25.04.1984 on account of death of her husband. She also died in harness on 10.06.1988. The brother of the writ petitioner namely, Selw Kumar Swamy was appointed on compassionate ground on 31.01.1989 and in his service book, the name of the writ petitioner namely, Anita Kumari as the only nominee/dependent of her brother, is mentioned. Unfortunately, the brother of the writ petitioner namely Late Selw Kumar Swamy, while working under the respondents, has also died in harness on 29.12.2014 due to liver disease and C.R. failure. One of the sisters namely, Reeta Kumari also died on 15.08.2005 prior to the death of the brother of the writ petitioner and other two sisters have got married and they are living in their in-laws house and the writ petitioner is the only alive unmarried sister. The writ petitioner, left with no source of livelihood, submitted representation on 05.09.2015 for payment of entire death-cum-retiral benefits being only dependent of his deceased brother as also claimed for appointment on compassionate ground vide application dated 19.01.2016. The claim of the writ petitioner has been rejected vide decision of the authority dated 02.02.2016 stating that sister is not entitled for employment under provision of NCWA under 9.3.0. The claim of the writ petitioner has been rejected vide decision of the authority dated 02.02.2016 stating that sister is not entitled for employment under provision of NCWA under 9.3.0. The writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition questioning the decision of the administrative authority and by taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2147 of 2018, in L.P.A. No. 617 of 2017 and in L.P.A. No.475 of 2017, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 02.02.2016 with a liberty to the writ petitioner to file representation along with order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2147 of 2018 and the respondents, in turn, have been directed to take decision afresh in the light of the discussion made in W.P.(S) No.2147 of 2018 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 4. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the CCL management, has submitted that the very basis upon which the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the order passed by the administrative authority of CCL dated 02.02.2016 i.e., Letters Patent Appeals being L.P.A. No.617 of 2017 and L.P.A. No.475 of 2017, have already been challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court which is lying pending for its consideration and in that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition and, therefore, the order passed by learned Single Judge suffers from infirmity. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant management and considered the factual aspect involved in this case as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is evident from the order passed by the learned Single Judge that the order of the administrative authority of the appellant management has been quashed and set aside considering the order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No.617 of 2017 and L.P.A. No.475 of 2017 as also the order passed in W.P.(S) No.2147 of 2018 and directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioner afresh in the light of the discussions made in W.P.(S) No.2147 of 2018 within the stipulated period. The sole ground agitated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant CCL is that the order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No.617 of 2017 and L.P.A. No.475 of 2017 are lying pending for its consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge may be rendered to be unsustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, quash and set it aside. However, on specific query made by this Court as to whether there is any ad interim order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court staying the operation of the order passed in L.P.A. No.617 of 2017 and L.P.A. No.475 of 2017, the learned counsel for the appellant CCL has submitted that no ad interim order staying the operation of the order passed in L.P.A. No.617 of 2017 and L.P.A. No.475 of 2017 has been passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. The question which is required to be considered is that mere filing of an appeal will ipso facto require the order concerned to be kept in abeyance? It is settled position of law that mere filing of an appeal cannot be a ground not to follow the judgment passed by a court of law which has got its binding effect if rendered in the similar facts and circumstances. The question of judicial discipline is of paramount importance as, if any order/judgment has been passed by the court in an intra-court appeal and if it has been placed before the learned Single Judge it is the requirement of judicial discipline to follow the said judgment passed by the Division Bench unless until the Single Bench deems it desirable to refer the matter to a larger Bench. Therefore, if the learned Single Judge has passed the order by quashing and setting aside the impugned decision in terms of the order passed in L.P.A. No.617 of 2017 and L.P.A. No.475 of 2017 with a direction to take a decision afresh, the same cannot be said to suffer from error, rather if the learned Single Judge would not have followed the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.617 of 2017 and L.P.A. No.475 of 2017, certainly, it will be said to be contrary to the principle of judicial discipline. Further, as would be evident that the fact about pendency of the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the said order has not been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. 7. Thus, according to our considered view, mere filing of an appeal does not mean that order under challenge would stand stayed or its operation is to be kept in abeyance unless any interim order staying the operation of the order is passed by the court of competent jurisdiction. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, according to our considered view, the ground which has been agitated for assailing the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge i.e., pendency of the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court, without any ad interim stay, cannot be said to be justified ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. Accordingly, the instant appeal lacks merit and as such, the same is dismissed. 10. It goes without saying that the present decision or the order impugned would be subject to the decision taken in the concerned Special Leave Petition.