JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. By this batch of Writ Petitions, the Petitioners have challenged the judgments and orders passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench regarding the grant of Special Duty Allowance (for short "SDA") to the employees under them. 2. In WP(C) No. 5087/99 the Petitioners, Regional Director, ESI Corporation and another have challenged the order dated 17.2.99 passed by the learned Tribunal setting aside the order dated 12.6.96 issued by the Petitioner No. 1 and directing that the employees of the Corporation will continue to receive the SDA in terms of the order dated 28.2.90 passed in O.A. No. 130(G)89. An application being O.A. No. 103/96 was filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein challenging the order issued by the Regional Director, ESI Corporation dated 12.6.96, whereby the SDA directed to be paid by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 28.2.90 in O.A. No. 130(G)/89 was sought to be recovered with effect from 20.9.94 and also deciding not to pay the said allowances to the members of the Respondent No. 1 Association, though the learned Tribunal by the aforesaid order dated 28.2.90 has held that the Members of the Petitioners association are entitled to such SDA. 3. WP(C) No. 3009/2001 is filed by the Union of India challenging the order dated 20.12.2000 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 306/99 filed by the applicants therein, who are the Respondents before this Court, to pay the SDA in terms of the officer memorandums dated 14.12.83 and 1.12.88 for the period of their posting in North Eastern Region. The said Original Application was filed by the Respondents herein claiming the said allowances in terms of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. B. Prasad B.S.D. and Ors. reported in (1997) 4 SCC 189 and also in terms of the office memorandums dated 14.12.83 and 1.12.88 claiming that they have fulfilled all the conditions for grant of such SDA. 4. Writ Petition (C) No. 7057/2001 is directed against the order dated 5.3.2001 passed by the learned Tribunal holding that the applicants (Respondents herein) are entitled to SDA and directing the writ Petitioners to pay the said allowances from the date of their subsequent posting in N.E. Region. 4. Writ Petition (C) No. 7057/2001 is directed against the order dated 5.3.2001 passed by the learned Tribunal holding that the applicants (Respondents herein) are entitled to SDA and directing the writ Petitioners to pay the said allowances from the date of their subsequent posting in N.E. Region. The Original Application was filed by the Respondents herein claiming that though they were initially recruited in the North Eastern Region they were transferred to places out side the said Region and re-transferred to the North Eastern Region and as such they are entitled to the SDA. 5. The Union of India and Ors. in Writ Petition (C) No. 7324/2001 have challenged the order dated 19.12.2000 passed by the learned Tribunal directing the Petitioners to give effect to the earlier order dated 28.2.90 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 130(G)/89 and 130/96. 6. Writ Petition (C) No. 3000/2001 and 3280 of 2001 have been filed by the Union of India and others challenging the common order dated 19.12.2000 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 268/2000 and O.A. No. 293/1999 filed by the present Respondents, setting aside the order dated 12.7.2000, 14.7.2000 and 25.8.2000, whereby the writ Petitioners have decided to discontinue the payment of SDA and to recover the amount already paid and directing the writ Petitioners to comply with the judgment and order passed on 31.8.90 in O.A. No. 80/99, wherein the learned Tribunal declared that the Respondents are entitled to SDA under the various office memorandums issued by the Government of India in that regard. 7. In Writ Petition (C) No. 2771/04 the Union of India has challenged the common order dated 123.5.03 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 249/2002 and other Original Applications, directing the Petitioners not to make any further recovery of the SDA already paid to the Respondents herein, while rejecting the claim of the Respondents herein for grant of SDA. The said Original Application was filed before the Tribunal assailing the action of the Respondents as regards the recovery of the SDA so far paid to the applicants Respondents herein. 8. We have heard Mr. Dey, learned Senior counsel and Mr. H. Rahman, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the writ Petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions and Mr. J.L. Sarkar and Mr. M. Chanda learned Counsel for the Respondents. 9. 8. We have heard Mr. Dey, learned Senior counsel and Mr. H. Rahman, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the writ Petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions and Mr. J.L. Sarkar and Mr. M. Chanda learned Counsel for the Respondents. 9. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, upon consideration of the recommendation of the Committee appointed by it to review the existing allowances and facilities admissible to the various categories of Civilian Central Government employees serving in the North Eastern Region, comprising the State of Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura and erstwhile Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram and to suggest suitable improvement, has decided to grant the Special Duty Allowances to the Central Government Civilian employees, who have All India transfer liability, on their posting from any region in to the North Eastern Region. It is evident from the said office memorandum that the intention of the Government and the spirit behind issuance of such office memorandum is to provide incentive and attraction to the officers belonging to the region other than the North Eastern Region to come and serve in the said region. 10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners have submitted that the issue relating to the entitlement of SDA by the employees/officers of the Central Government has already been decided by the Apex Court in S. Vijaykumar's case. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the employees/officers, who are not entitled to such allowance in view of the said decision of the Apex Court, cannot be paid such allowance, even if the cases filed by them were heard and disposed of in their favour before the said decision of the Apex Court, by the learned Tribunal or by the High Court in a petition challenging such decision of the learned Tribunal. 11. The learned Counsel for the Respondents, agreeing with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners relating to the decision of the Apex Court regarding the entitlement of SDA, in S. Vijaykumar's case, have however submitted that the said decision of the Apex Court will not effect the decisions of the learned Tribunal, rendered prior to the said judgment of the Apex Court, which have attained finality, either because of not challenging the same before the Higher Court or if challenged, were rejected. 12. In Union of India and Ors. v. S. Vijaykumar and Ors. 12. In Union of India and Ors. v. S. Vijaykumar and Ors. reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 649 the Apex Court by taking into account the purpose for which the office memorandums dated 14.12.83, 29.10.86 and 20.4.87 were issued, has held that such allowances was meant to attract persons out side the North Eastern Region to work in that Region because of inaccessibility and difficult terrain and with a view to attract and retain the services of the competent officers for service in North Eastern Region. It has further been held that the Central Government Civilian employees who have All India Transfer Liability would be granted the allowances on posting to any Station in the North Eastern Region and such employees would not become entitle to such allowances merely because of the Clause in the appointment order relating to All India Transfer Liability. However, the Apex Court, on the basis of the concession given by the learned Additional Solicitor General, has directed that the amount already drawn by the ineligible employees/officers, towards SDA shall not be recovered from them. The Apex Court in Chief General Management (Telecom), N.E. Telecom Circle and Anr. v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee and Ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 813 has also reiterated the said position. 13. The Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Executive Officers Association Group C, reported in 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 757; upon consideration of the object behind issuance of the various office memorandums issued by the Government of India regarding entitlement of Special Duty Allowance, has held that as the North Eastern Region was considered to be hard zone for various reasons, the Government has issued the said office memorandums providing certain extra allowances, benefits and other facilities to attract competent officers in the North Eastern Region at least for 2 to 3 years of tenure posting. Referring to Rajendra Ch. Bhattachaijee case, the Apex Court has further held that such benefits shall not be available to the persons belonging to the N.E. region, where they were appointed and posted. The decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. etc v. B. Prasad, B.S.D. and Ors. Referring to Rajendra Ch. Bhattachaijee case, the Apex Court has further held that such benefits shall not be available to the persons belonging to the N.E. region, where they were appointed and posted. The decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. etc v. B. Prasad, B.S.D. and Ors. etc (supra) being related to the entitlement of SDA as well as Field area Special compensatory (Remote Locality) Allowance, of the defence civilian personnel, is not applicable in the present writ petitions as the said issue has not arisen in this batch of writ petitions. 14. From the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, it is, therefore, evident that the SDA is payable to the civilian employees of the Government of India who were initially appointed and posted outside the North Eastern Region but subsequently posted in the North Eastern Region. The benefit of such allowance is also not available to the employees/officers belonging to North Eastern region and to such officers/persons who were appointed and posted in the said region. 15. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) thereafter issued an office memorandum dated 13.6.2001 regarding admissibility of SDA of postal employees in their posting in N.E. Region. In the said office memorandum it has been clarified that there is no bar in eligibility of SDA for the officers belonging to North Eastern Region if they satisfy the criteria that their appointment in service/post is made on All India basis and the promotion is also done on the basis of All India common seniority. However, it has been made clear that they will be entitled to the same, if they are posted in N.E. Region from out side the region. 16. The learned Assistant Solicitor General, during the course of argument, has placed on record another office memorandum dated issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) wherein it is stipulated that the SDA shall be admissible to the Central Government employees having All India Transfer Liability on their posting to the North Eastern Region, including sikkim, from outside the region. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court dated 5.10.2001 in Civil Appeal No. 7000/2001, the Ministry in the said office memorandum has also decided that the amount already paid on account of SDA to the ineligible persons not qualified to such allowances on or before 5.10.2001 will be waived. However, the recoveries, if any, already made, need not be refunded and the amount paid on account of such allowances after 5.10.2001 will be recovered. 17. It appears from the said office memorandum dated 29.5.2002 that the admissibility of SDA of the postal employees belonging to the North Eastern Region upon posting in the said region on the basis of the promotion pursuant to the All India common seniority and on their posting to N.E. region from outside the region, has not been dealt with. 18. Let us now consider the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties on the point whether the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court will any way effect the rights of the employees/officers already accrued to them, prior to the said decisions of the Apex Court, by virtue of the decisions given by the learned Tribunal in the applications where they were parties. 19. Doctrine of finality of judgment or the principles of res judicata are founded on the basic principle that when a Court of competent jurisdiction renders any judgment, the same ought not to be allowed to be agitated again and again. The judgment which attained finality cannot be re-opened and the benefit occurred therein cannot be taken away by the authority by issuing any order or office memorandum, which is contrary to such decision, on the ground that the position of law has been changed because of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court, unless of course the Apex Court directs otherwise or such decisions of the competent Court/tribunal is challenged and set aside. Such decision would operate as res judicata between the parties to such decision. Therefore, the rights of the employees/officers accrued under the order of the learned Tribunal, which attained finality, cannot be taken away because of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in S. Vijaykumar case. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners also could not place any direction of the Apex Court that the said decision shall effect all the judgments already rendered by any competent Court/tribunal. 20. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners also could not place any direction of the Apex Court that the said decision shall effect all the judgments already rendered by any competent Court/tribunal. 20. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as discussed above and also in view of the discussion relating to the finality of judgment, we hold that the officers and employees, who belongs to the region other than the N.E. Region, will be entitled to SDA. The persons belonging to the other parts of the country other than the N.E. Region, if initially appointed and posted in N.E. Region shall not be entitled to such allowance. The Postal employees belonging to N.E. Region but posted in the said Region from out side the region on their promotion on the basis of the All India Common seniority List shall also be entitled to SDA from the date of such posting. The employees and officers, other than, the employees and officers mentioned above, shall not be entitled to SDA and the authorities shall be entitled to recover SDA already paid to them after 5.10.2001 in terms of the office memorandum dated 29.5.2002 and the amount already paid upto 5.10.2001 towards SDA shall not be recovered. However, the recoveries, if any already been made, need not be refunded. This is also subject to the inter party judgment and order that have been passed by any competent Court or Tribunal, which have attained its finality. 21. The writ Petitioners in view of our aforesaid decision, are directed to scrutinize each of the claim of the officers/employees for SDA and pass necessary orders in that regard. However, the authority cannot reopen and stop payment of SDA or recover such allowances from such officers/employees, whose cases have already been decided by the learned Tribunal, prior to S. Vijaykumar's case, declaring that they are entitled to such allowances, if the said decisions have not been assailed and set aside by the Higher Court. 22. The judgments and orders passed by the learned Tribunal are accordingly modified to the extent indicated above. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to cost.