Article 102 of the CPACA refers specifically to the unification sentences of the State Council, which implies, in principle, that the favorable solution whose extension by the administrative authorities can only be found in orders issued by this judicial state. However, the Constitutional Court referred to this way of interpreting said provision, based on its constitutional article 230 and 241, when analyzing the scope of what is established, through Sentences C-634/2011, C-816/2011 and C -588/2012, where he specified that the exequibility of the provision is conditioned on the fact that, in compliance with it, the decisions of the Constitutional Court are observed preferentially. In this order, their concludes that there is no omission on his part when analyzing the scope of the text of article 102 of Law 1437 of 2011, since the general duty of the administrative and judicial authorities to observe and apply by text contained in the The Constitution extends to the interpretations made by Court through the judicial precedent. As a consequence of the foregoing, it has caused disjunctions for the administrative organs when evidencing clashes between the Constitutional Court and the Council of State on the same subject; independently of applying any of the two preceding ones creating legal insecurity, at the time of making a decision and generating guardianships and lawsuits against public entities for not applying the judicial precedent, in the following case: Judgment of August 4 de 2010 of the Council of State, on the recognition of an old-age pension on the occasion of the transitional regime of article 36 of Law 100 of 1993.