1.       Delay condoned.

2.       Having regard to the difference in the amount of pension, i.e. ₹163/- per month, which would be payable to the Respondent/Complainant in terms of the directions by the lower Fora, at the time of issuing notice to the Respondent, the Petitioner Department was directed to seek instructions as to the number of cases in which the question, sought to be raised in the present Revision Petition, is pending before the Courts/Consumer Fora.  Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states, on instructions, that no other case on the issue is pending before any Fora.

3.       In view of the submission, having regard to the smallness of the amount involving in a solitary case, I do not find it to be a fit case for exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction.

4.       Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed, keeping open the question of law sought to be raised by the Petitioner in this Revision Petition.