it2025_00321 — Applicant who retired as Upper Division Clerk from the Office of Director, Maintenance Centre, Doordarshan Complex, R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati (R-4 herein), is entitled to payment of Special Duty Allowance (SDA in short) if similarly situated person in North-Eastern Region is paid such allowance, till his date of Retirement on 1-4-2007

IT Rules

Applicant who retired as Upper Division Clerk from the Office of Director, Maintenance Centre, Doordarshan Complex, R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati (R-4 herein), is entitled to payment of Special Duty Allowance (SDA in short) if similarly situated person in North-Eastern Region is paid such allowance, till his date of Retirement on 1-4-2007 — The given chunk pertains to an Original Application (OA) No. 040 / 00098 of 2017, in which an Upper Division Clerk who retired in 2007 seeks payment of Special Duty Allowance (SDA) from the date he j... — Facts:The Applicant who retired as Upper Division Clerk / Storekeeper on 1-4-2007 and prays for arrears payment of Special Duty Allowance (SDA) to him from the date of his joining in North-Eastern Region is paid such allowance, till his date of retirement on 1-4-2007. The Applicant quotes the Circular No. 15 (8) 2008-A&G, dated 30/31-3-2015 wherein it was decided to pay arrears of SDA to eligible officials up to 31-8-2008 who had worked in different stations / offices of AIR and DD in North-Eastern Region irrespective of their All India Transfer liability. This decision had been followed in many cases and departments states the Applicant. Similar cases of payment had also been quoted by the Applicant. Counsel for the Applicant drew the attention of the Tribunal an Order, dated 1-1-2016 in O.A. No. 040/00425 of 2015 and 21-3-2016 in O.A. No. 040 / 00088 of 2016. Hence the Applicant prays for the same. Relevant portion in Paras. 5, 6 and 7 of the Order, dated 1-1-2016 in O.A. No. 040 / 00425 of 2015 is extracted in the judgment to justify the prayer. In the case of Inder Pal Yadav and others v. Union of India and others [1995 (2) SCC 648 ], the Apex Court held that "Relief granted by Court is to be given to other similarly situated employees without forcing them to Court for similar benefits". Similar is the view in the case of State of Karnataka and others v. C. Lalitha [ 2006 (2) SCC 747 ].

IT Rules

Applicant who retired as Upper Division Clerk from the Office of Director, Maintenance Centre, Doordarshan Complex, R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati (R-4 herein), is entitled to payment of Special Duty Allowance (SDA in short) if similarly situated person in North-Eastern Region is paid such allowance, till his date of Retirement on 1-4-2007 — The given chunk pertains to an Original Application (OA) No. 040 / 00098 of 2017, in which an Upper Division Clerk who retired in 2007 seeks payment of Special Duty Allowance (SDA) from the date he j... — Facts:The Applicant who retired as Upper Division Clerk / Storekeeper on 1-4-2007 and prays for arrears payment of Special Duty Allowance (SDA) to him from the date of his joining in North-Eastern Region is paid such allowance, till his date of retirement on 1-4-2007. The Applicant quotes the Circular No. 15 (8) 2008-A&G, dated 30/31-3-2015 wherein it was decided to pay arrears of SDA to eligible officials up to 31-8-2008 who had worked in different stations / offices of AIR and DD in North-Eastern Region irrespective of their All India Transfer liability. This decision had been followed in many cases and departments states the Applicant. Similar cases of payment had also been quoted by the Applicant. Counsel for the Applicant drew the attention of the Tribunal an Order, dated 1-1-2016 in O.A. No. 040/00425 of 2015 and 21-3-2016 in O.A. No. 040 / 00088 of 2016. Hence the Applicant prays for the same. Relevant portion in Paras. 5, 6 and 7 of the Order, dated 1-1-2016 in O.A. No. 040 / 00425 of 2015 is extracted in the judgment to justify the prayer. In the case of Inder Pal Yadav and others v. Union of India and others [1995 (2) SCC 648 ], the Apex Court held that "Relief granted by Court is to be given to other similarly situated employees without forcing them to Court for similar benefits". Similar is the view in the case of State of Karnataka and others v. C. Lalitha [ 2006 (2) SCC 747 ].

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text