Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 29 (GAU)

Tushar Kanti Paul v. Union of India

2018-01-08

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.6.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, whereby it has dismissed petitioner’s OA No.136/2004. The petitioner is also aggrieved with the order dated 18.5.2005, by which, the Tribunal dismissed his Review Application No.6/2005. 2. On 14.12.1983, the Union of India issued an office memorandum conferring certain rights and privileges in favour of its employees posted in North-Eastern Region of the country. One of the rights, so conferred, was that such employees shall be entitled for a special duty allowance. The petitioner, on the basis of the aforesaid office memorandum, claimed special duty allowance, which was denied to him. He, therefore, filed an original application, namely, OA No.105/1987 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench (for short “Tribunal”). The Tribunal vide order dated 12.5.1989 allowed the original application pursuant to which the petitioner was being paid special duty allowance. However, subsequently, the aforesaid benefit was withdrawn vide order dated 31.12.1998 issued by the Regional Pay and Accounts Officer, which was subject matter of challenge in OA No.7/1999 before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal vide order dated 2.11.2000 held that the question of payment of special pay allowance had already been settled and therefore the authorities cannot discontinue the same. But, later, by an another order dated 13.5.2004, Respondent No.5 directed to discontinue special duty allowance to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, once again filed OA No.136/2004 before the Tribunal. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 9.6.2005. The petitioner then filed an application for review which was also dismissed on 18.8.2005. 4. The petitioner, therefore, challenged both the aforesaid orders in WP(C) No.2486/2006 on the ground that as the issue with regard to payment of special pay allowance has been settled between the parties by a competent court and relief was granted by the competent court, the same cannot be withdrawn by an executive order in the light of decision of the Supreme Court, to which, he was not a party. 5. 5. The Division Bench of this Court referred the matter to Full Bench on the following question of law :- “Whether after the right of petitioner to receive Special Duty Allowance having been settled by a competent court survives irrespective of different interpretation of law by the Supreme Court on the same issue, but in another proceeding, in which, he is not a party?” 6. The Full Court, vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2017, has held that since the issue with regard to special duty allowance has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Vijay Kumar (1994) Suppl.3 SCC 649, the case of the petitioner for grant of special duty allowance does not survive merely on the ground that his claim was settled by the competent court and he was not a party in a decision rendered in the case of Vijay Kumar (supra). Therefore, in the light of Full Bench decision, we find no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed.