JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The challenge made in the instant proceeding is against the order dated 01.08.2007 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Tribunal') in a series of original applications including OA. No. 25/2006 as well as the one dated 05.11.2009 passed in EP No. 5/2009 arising therefrom. We have heard Mr. DC Chakraborty, learned Central Government Standing counsel for the petitioner and Ms. U Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants. Incidentally the respondents/applicants in OA No. 25/2006 and EP No. 5/2009 had approached the learned Tribunal seeking grant of Special Duty Allowances on the basis of their all India transfer liability as well as their postings in the North Eastern Region of the country as contemplated by the relevant Official Memorandum issued by the Central Government to that effect. Vide judgment and order dated 01.08.2007 referred to hereinabove, the learned Tribunal on a due analysis of the facts involved granted the reliefs prayed for and parted with the proceedings with the following operative directions: In the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the appellants to make individual representation to the concerned respondent, narrating their period of posting in the NE Region within a time-frame of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on receipt of such representations, the respondents shall grant benefit to the applicants within a time-frame of 3(three) months thereafter. 2. Thereby as the text of the quote as above would reveal, the respondents/applicants were required to make individual representations to the concerned authority within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a copy thereof (judgment and order) narrating their period of posting in North Eastern Region. The concerned authority was on that event required to grant the benefit as sanctioned by it (the learned Tribunal) within a time frame of 3(three) months thereafter. 3. The respondents/applicants returned to the Tribunal with a complaint that inspite of compliance on their part with the above directions, the concerned authority had not acted in terms thereof. The concerned authority was on that event required to grant the benefit as sanctioned by it (the learned Tribunal) within a time frame of 3(three) months thereafter. 3. The respondents/applicants returned to the Tribunal with a complaint that inspite of compliance on their part with the above directions, the concerned authority had not acted in terms thereof. By the impugned order dated 05.11.2009, the Execution Petition above referred was disposed of with the direction to the respondents/applicants to make individual representations to the concerned authority with specific details of the period of stay in the North Eastern region within a period of 1(one) month therefrom and required the said authority to disburse the necessary allowances to them within a period of 3(three) months thereafter. This was inspite of the categorical plea taken on behalf of the concerned authority that the applicants, except the applicant No. 1, had not submitted the representations as required for which the relief granted by the learned Tribunal was not extendable to them. 4. Mr. Chakraborty has emphatically urged that in the above backdrop of facts, fresh liberty granted to the respondents/applicants to submit individual representations within a new time frame of 1(one) month with a mandate to the union authorities to disburse the allowance is wholly unwarranted. According to him, the respondents/applicants having failed to comply with the directions as contained in the judgment and order dated 01.08.2007 for release of the allowance to them, in absence of any acceptable justification, the fresh liberty to pursue the same relief ought not to have been granted. 5. Ms. Dutta, in reply has urged that the learned Tribunal having granted the relief of Special Duty Allowance to the respondents/applicants on a due consideration of the relevant law and the facts involved, no fault with the order dated 05.11.2009 in the facts and circumstances of the case is discernible. As the adjudication, vis-à-vis, the entitlement of the applicants for Special Duty Allowance remains intact, the learned Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction on an evaluation of the attendant facts and circumstances to grant the fresh liberty to the respondents/applicants to avail the relief granted by it. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and documents on record, we are of the view that no interference as such with the impugned orders dated 01.08.2007 and 05.11.2009 is called for. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and documents on record, we are of the view that no interference as such with the impugned orders dated 01.08.2007 and 05.11.2009 is called for. We are satisfied on a consideration of the order dated 01.08.2007 that the learned Tribunal had rightly held the respondents/applicants to be entitled to the Special Duty Allowance. 7. In this view of the matter, even if, they had failed to meticulously comply with the operative directions as embodied in the order dated 01.08.2007, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the same ought not to result in total denial of their claim as sustained by the learned Tribunal. This conclusion of ours is with the full notice of the demur of the authorities that the respondents/applicants barring the applicant No. 1 had belatedly filed their representations as required by the order dated 01.08.2007. 8. In the factual setting as obtained in the instant case, we are of the view that such a lapse, even if so exists, vis-à-vis, the respondents/applicants, the same had not constituted such a cardinal omission on their part so as to deny them the benefit of Special Duty Allowance, which they are entitled to, as held by the learned Tribunal. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition is rejected. 9. However in order to make way for the respondents/applicants to avail the benefit of the adjudication made by the learned Tribunal as per the order dated 01.08.2007, we are of the view that for the ends of justice, they ought to be granted further 1(one) month's time so as to enable them to file their representations before the concerned authority as contemplated by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted by Ms. Dutta on instructions that meanwhile some of the respondents/applicants have already submitted their representations. If that be so they need not file fresh representations in terms of this order. We, however, make it clear that vis-à-vis, the respondents/applicants who are still in default as on date they ought to, without fail, submit their representations within a period of 1(one) month herefrom as ordered. If that be so they need not file fresh representations in terms of this order. We, however, make it clear that vis-à-vis, the respondents/applicants who are still in default as on date they ought to, without fail, submit their representations within a period of 1(one) month herefrom as ordered. In case, however, they fail to do so, it would be open for the Union of India and its authorities to approach this Court for necessary intervention amongst others for reconsideration of the entitlement of the defaulting respondents/applicants to the Special Duty Allowance, as determined by the learned Tribunal. No costs. Petition dismissed