ORDER Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J. 1. The respondent herein was recruited, on 07.06.1995, to the post of Senior Training Assistant T-6 (Animal Science) in the office of the Director, Central Inland Capture Fisheries Research Institute (in short, 'CIFRI'), Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Barrackpore (Kakdwip), West Bengal, which was one of the institution of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (in short, ICAR). One of the terms and conditions of the respondent's appointment was that he would be liable to serve in any institute and/or office of the ICAR located anywhere in India. The respondent herein joined his post, on 21.07.1995, on probation, for a period of two years. Due to administrative exigencies, however, the said Krishi Vigyan Kendra, CIFRI, at Kakdwip, had to be closed down by the ICAR on 31.03.2004. As a sequel to the closing down of the office of the ICAR, at the said Krishi Vigyan Kendra, at Kakdwip, the technical, administrative and supporting staffs of the said Institute were redeployed in various other Institutes of the ICAR. By Office Order, dated 18.06.2004, issued by the Director, CIFRI, Barrackpore, West Bengal, some of the Scientists, Technical, Administrative and Supporting officials were redeployed/transferred from the office of the Director, CIFRI, Barrackpore, West Bengal, to various other places, in India, and the respondent herein was redeployed/transferred, by the said order, dated 18.06.2004, aforementioned, from Kakdwip office of the CIFRI, to the North Eastern Regional Centre of the CIFRI, at Guwahati, the posting of the respondent, at Guwahati, being on his own request. On his redeployment/transfer to Guwahati, the respondent started receiving Special Duty Allowance (in short, 'SDA'). 2. Contending that the respondent was not entitled to receive SDA, though he stood posted at Guwahati, which falls within North Eastern Region, the authorities concerned issued an order, dated 17.08.2005, making it clear that the respondent and others, similarly situated, were not entitled to SDA. Following the order, dated 17.08.2005, another order was issued, on 05.11.2005, directing recovery of the amounts, which had already been paid to, and received by, the respondent herein as SDA, the amounts, however, having been directed to be recovered in suitable installments with effect from November, 2005. 3. Following the order, dated 17.08.2005, another order was issued, on 05.11.2005, directing recovery of the amounts, which had already been paid to, and received by, the respondent herein as SDA, the amounts, however, having been directed to be recovered in suitable installments with effect from November, 2005. 3. Aggrieved by the order of recovery, so passed, on 05.11.2005, by the authorities concerned, the respondent herein, along with two others, filed Original Application (in short, 'OA'), in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal'), against the said orders, dated 17.08.2005 and 05.11.2005, claiming that they were entitled to receive SDA. The Original Application, filed by the respondent herein and the said two others, came to be registered as O.A. 295/2005. 4. The petitioners herein resisted the Original Application by contending that so far as the respondent herein was concerned, he was not entitled to SDA inasmuch as he did not fall within the ambit of All India Transfer Liability clause, which is imperative for a person to claim, and to be entitled to receive, SDA. In this regard, the petitioners herein relied on the Memorandum, dated 29.5.2002, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. 5. By its order, dated 31.12.2007, the learned Tribunal disposed of the O.A. 295/2005, by rejecting the respondent's claim for SDA on the ground that the respondent was, originally, posted in West Bengal and, on winding up of the office there, he opted for posting in the North Eastern Region and he did not, therefore, qualify for grant of SDA. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the respondent herein filed a review petition seeking review of the order, dated 31.12.2007, aforementioned. The review application gave rise to RA 1/2008, wherein the respondent's contention was that considering the fact that the Krishi Vigyan Kendra, CIFRI, at Barrackpore (Kakdwip), West Bengal, had been closed down due to administrative exigencies, it could not have been said that the review applicant had opted for being posted in the North Eastern Region. 7. The review application gave rise to RA 1/2008, wherein the respondent's contention was that considering the fact that the Krishi Vigyan Kendra, CIFRI, at Barrackpore (Kakdwip), West Bengal, had been closed down due to administrative exigencies, it could not have been said that the review applicant had opted for being posted in the North Eastern Region. 7. By yet another application, filed in Review Application No. 1/2008, the respondent herein (who was the review petitioner) brought on record a letter, dated 26.02.2007, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, whereby it was clarified that there was no restriction in granting of SDA to a Central Government employee if he was posted, on his own request, in North Eastern Region, and he would remain entitled to SDA as per the criteria mentioned in the Finance Ministry's Memorandum, dated 29.05.2002. 8. Based on the letter, dated 26.02.2007, aforementioned, the learned Tribunal reviewed, by its order, dated 26.03.2009, its earlier order, dated 31.12.2007, and directed the present petitioner to release SDA to the review petitioner (i.e., respondent herein) w.e.f. the date of his joining the office at the North Eastern Regional Centre, Guwahati. 9. Aggrieved by the order, dated 26.03.2009, aforementioned passed, in Review Application No. 1 of 2008, by the learned Tribunal, this writ petition has been filed by the present petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order, dated 26.03.2009, passed by the learned Tribunal. 10. We have heard Mrs. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, and Mrs. U. Dutta, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 11. Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, Mrs. R. Choudhury has submitted that before the order, dated 31.12.2007, was reviewed, no notice was issued to, or served upon, the petitioners and, thus, without affording any opportunity to the petitioners of showing cause or to have their say in the matter of review, the learned Tribunal passed the order, dated 26.03.2009, reviewing its earlier order, dated 31.12.2007, whereby it had earlier declined to grant SDA to the respondent herein. 12. As regards the merit of the review application, which the respondent herein had filed, Mrs. 12. As regards the merit of the review application, which the respondent herein had filed, Mrs. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, has pointed out that, while considering the letter, dated 26.07.2007, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, the learned Tribunal did not take into account the contents of the Finance Ministry's Office Memorandum, dated 29.05.2002, aforementioned, which the letter, dated 26.07.2007, aforementioned had referred to. Mrs. Choudhury further submits that had the learned Tribunal taken into account the said Office Memorandum, dated 29.05.2002, it would have become apparent that the respondent was not entitled to receive SDA inasmuch as the respondent's recruitment was not on All India basis and he was not a member of a service, which had a common All India Seniority List, whereas these two preconditions are, amongst others, essential for a person to satisfy so as to be able to claim SDA. 13. Mrs. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that this Court may either set aside the order, dated 26.03.2009, and remand the review application to the learned Tribunal for a decision afresh, or the merit of the contentions, raised in the review application, which led to the passing of the impugned order by the learned Tribunal, may be examined by this Court and appropriate order may be passed thereon. 14. Resisting the contention of the writ petitioners, Mrs. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent, points out that in the Memorandum, dated 07.06.21995, whereby the petitioner was appointed as Senior Training Assistant T-6 (Animal Science), it was specifically mentioned that the respondent herein "would be liable to serve in any institute and/or office of the ICAR located anywhere in India". Thus, the respondent, contends Mrs. Dutta, learned counsel, had All India Transfer liability and the learned Tribunal was wholly correct in treating him as a person entitled to receive SDA in the light of the clarification, which had been offered by the letter, dated 26.02.2007, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. 15. Thus, the respondent, contends Mrs. Dutta, learned counsel, had All India Transfer liability and the learned Tribunal was wholly correct in treating him as a person entitled to receive SDA in the light of the clarification, which had been offered by the letter, dated 26.02.2007, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. 15. Considering the fact that it could not be disputed before us that no notice was issued to, and/or served upon, the petitioners before the impugned order, dated 26.3.2009, was passed by the learned Tribunal, it becomes clear that the impugned order, dated 26.03.2009, aforementioned adversely affected the petitioners' interest inasmuch as the respondent herein has been held entitled to SDA, though, according to the petitioners, the respondent is not so entitled and the learned Tribunal had earlier, in its order, dated 31.12.2009, aforementioned had accepted this contention of the petitioners. 16. This is trite that no order can be passed by a court to the prejudice of any of the parties and, particularly, imposing any obligation, financial or otherwise, without giving the party, against whom the order is proposed to be passed, a notice to offer his her cause or have his/her say in the matter. 17. As the present petitioners had not been served with any notice of the review application, the impugned order, dated 26.3.2009, cannot be sustained and must be set aside. 18. Though what we have concluded above substantially takes care of the rival submissions, which have been made on behalf of the parties concerned, we reproduce herein-below the letter, dated 26.02.2007, which the learned Tribunal has relied upon, in the review application, while acceding to the prayer of the respondent herein, and reviewed its earlier order, dated 31.12.2007. The relevant part of the letter, dated 26.02.2007, reads as under: Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure, E-II (B) Branch Sub: Proposal seeking clarification as to whether the employees posted/transferred in NE Region, at their own request from outside the NE Region are eligible to get SDA. Ref: U.O. No. Admn. 1 (27)/Shillong/06-07/2412 of Office of the Pr. Chief Controller of Accounts (Central Excise and Customs) on pre-page. There is no restriction for grant of Special Duty Allowance to Central Govt. Ref: U.O. No. Admn. 1 (27)/Shillong/06-07/2412 of Office of the Pr. Chief Controller of Accounts (Central Excise and Customs) on pre-page. There is no restriction for grant of Special Duty Allowance to Central Govt. Employees if they are posted on their own request and are entitled to SDA as per criteria for payment of SDA as mentioned in para 5 of Finance Ministry's P.M. No. 22(5)/97-E.II(B) dated 29.05.2005 (copy enclosed). Office of Pr. Chief Controller of Accounts is advised to decide the cases of payment of SDA accordingly. Sd/- (R. Prem Anand) Under Secretary to Govt. of India (Emphasis supplied) 19. It appears to have escaped the attention of the learned Tribunal that the letter, dated 26.02.2007, which has been referred to by the learned Tribunal, at para 8 of its order, also refers to the Finance Ministry's letter, dated 29.05.2002, which the petitioners' had relied upon. As the petitioners had relied on the Finance Ministry's Office Memorandum, dated 29.05.2002, aforementioned for the purpose of disclaiming the respondent's entitlement for SDA, it was not only pertinent but imperative that the relevant contents of the Office Memorandum, dated 29.05.2002, be taken note of. The relevant portion of the said Office Memorandum, dated 29.05.2002, is, therefore, reproduced below: 2. Certain incentives were granted to Central Government employees posted in NE Region vide OM dated 14.12.1983. Special Duty Allowance (SDA) is one of the incentives granted to the Central Government employees having 'All India Transfer Liability'. The necessary clarification for determining the All India Transfer Liability was issued vide OM dated 20.04.1987 laying down that All India Transfer Liability of the members of any service/cadre or incumbents of any post/group of posts has to be determined by applying the tests of recruitment zone, promotion zone etc., i.e., whether recruitment to service/cadre/post has been made on All India basis and whether promotion is also done on the basis of an All India common seniority list for the service/cadre/post has been made on All India basis and whether promotion is also done on the basis of an All India common seniority list for the service/cadre/post as a whole. A mere clause in the appointment letter to the effect that the person concerned is liable to be transferred anywhere in India, did not make him eligible for the grant of Special Duty Allowance. 3. A mere clause in the appointment letter to the effect that the person concerned is liable to be transferred anywhere in India, did not make him eligible for the grant of Special Duty Allowance. 3. Some employees working in NE region, who were not eligible for grant of Special Duty Allowance in accordance with the orders issued from time to time agitated the issue of payment of Special Duty Allowance to them before CAT, Guwahati Bench and in certain cases CAT upheld the prayer of employees. The Central Government filed appeals against CAT orders, which have been decided by the Supreme Court of India in favour of UOI. The Bonnie Supreme Court, in judgement delivered on 20.09.1994, in Civil Appeal No. 3251 of 1993, in the case of UOI and Ors. vs. Shri S. Vijaya Kumar and Ors., have upheld the submissions of the Government of India that Central Government civilian employees, who have All India Transfer Liability, are entitled to the grant of Special Duty Allowance on being posted to any station in the North Eastern Region from outside the region and Special Duty Allowance would not be payable merely because of a clause in the appointment order relating to All India Transfer Liability. (Emphasis added) 20. From a careful reading of what have been reproduced above, it becomes transparent that merely because of the fact that a person has the liability to be transferred to any part of India, he or she would not be entitled to payment of SDA even if posted in the North Eastern Region from outside the region unless the two conditions are satisfied, namely, (i) that his recruitment to the service/cadre/post had been made on All India basis and (ii) promotion is given also on the basis of All India Common Seniority List for the service/cadre/post he or she holds. 21. It is the case of the petitioners that though the respondent was, in terms of his letter of appointment, liable to be transferred to any place in India, his recruitment was in respect of CIFRI, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Barrackpore (Kakdwip), West Bengal, and, hence, his recruitment cannot be described to be on All India basis. 21. It is the case of the petitioners that though the respondent was, in terms of his letter of appointment, liable to be transferred to any place in India, his recruitment was in respect of CIFRI, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Barrackpore (Kakdwip), West Bengal, and, hence, his recruitment cannot be described to be on All India basis. This apart, and more importantly, there is, according to the petitioners, no All India Seniority list, in respect of the officers belonging to technical service of the ICAR and since the respondent was in technical service, he had no common all India seniority list and he could not have, therefore, been held to be entitled to receive SDA. On the other hand, it has been submitted, on behalf of the respondent, that the respondent was recruited on All India basis and even the persons in technical service, such as, the respondent herein, has a common seniority list at All India level and, hence, the respondent was rightly held by the learned Tribunal to be entitled to be granted SDA. 22. Considering the fact that questions, which have been raised before us, need a closer examination and it is in the interest of justice that the facts, in dispute, are examined and settled by the learned Tribunal as the primary authority, we are of the considered view that the review application needs to be sent, on remand, to the learned Tribunal for its consideration afresh. 23. Without, therefore, expressing any opinion with regard to the correctness and sustainability of the rival submissions, which have been made before us on behalf of the parties concerned, with regard to the question as to whether the respondent's recruitment was on All India basis and/or the question as to whether the respondent's promotion is based on All India Common Seniority list, we hereby, on the omission of notice having been served on the petitioners preceding the impugned order, dated 26.03.2009, set aside the order, dated 26.03.2009, and remand the review application to the learned Tribunal for determination of the questions pointed out above. In order to avoid any delay in disposal of the review application, we direct the parties to appear, in the learned Tribunal, on 21.01.2013, for further necessary order.