UMESH KUMAR MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner/applicant has questioned the order dated 13.03.2013 as passed in Original Application [O.A.] No.298/2012, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench, Guwahati [-the Tribunal-] has rejected his claim for Special Duty Allowance for the period from the month of September, 1996 to the month of August, 2008.

(2.) Put in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are as follows: On 06.07.1978, the petitioner, said to be a permanent resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh, came to be appointed as Junior Geologist in the selection conducted on All India basis; and was posted in the Paleontology Division of Geological Survey of India, North Eastern Region, Shillong. The petitioner was receiving Special Duty Allowance [-SDA-] for being posted in the North Eastern Region of the country, purportedly in terms of the Office Memoranda dated 14.12.1983 and 20.04.87 but then, the respondents stopped making such payment of SDA to the petitioner from the month of September, 1996 and proceeded to enforce recovery of the amount already paid, with reference to the decisions of the Hon-ble Supreme Court relating to the claim of such SDA by other employees. Being aggrieved of such denial of SDA and recovery of the amount already paid, the petitioner and 44 other employees preferred an O.A. bearing No. 209 of 1996 before the Tribunal. Several other employees working in the North Eastern Region in different departments also preferred similar O.As on similar nature grievance. All the said O.As. were disposed of by the Tribunal by way of a common order dated 05.12.1997 while holding that the applicants therein were not entitled to SDA but, while also directing that the SDA already paid to them shall not recovered. Dissatisfied, the petitioner and 8 other employees filed a Review Application [No.3 of 1998] that was considered and granted by the Tribunal in its order dated 20.12.2000; and the respondents were directed to allow SDA to the applicants including the petitioner and also to disburse the amount already recovered. However, the order so passed by the Tribunal on 20.12.2000 was questioned before the Hon-ble Gauhati High Court by the present respondents in W.P. (C) No.5222 of 2001.

(3.) It is borne out that the matters concerning several other employees on the similar nature claim of SDA were also pending before the Gauhati High Court in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P. (C) No. 5087 of 1999: The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation and others vs. The Secretary, Employees State Insurance Corporation Employees Union and others. This batch of writ petitions was ultimately disposed of by way of a common order dated 04.01.2006 wherein, the Gauhati High Court, after taking note of the decision of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. S. Vijayakumar and Ors.: 1994 Supp (3) SCC 649 and the applicable Office Memoranda, held that such officers and employees were entitled to SDA who belong to the region other than the North Eastern Region. However, in the said decision, the Hon-ble Gauhati High Court also held that the persons belonging to other parts of the country, if initially appointed and posted in North Eastern Region, would not be entitled to SDA. The petitioner seeks to rely on paragraphs 12, 15 and 16 of the aforesaid order dated 04.01.2006, which could be taken note of as under:-