SDA arrears cannot be restricted to litigants or recovered from similarly situated employees.

The applicants were AIR or Doordarshan employees who had served in the North Eastern Region before 31 August 2008.

Following judicial decisions concerning entitlement to Special Duty Allowance (SDA), a Directorate circular dated 30 March 2015 permitted arrears for eligible employees, and the applicants received payments.

A later circular dated 8 September 2015 restricted arrears to employees who had obtained favourable court or tribunal orders and directed recovery from others.

The applicants challenged that circular and consequential recovery action.

The respondents contended, among other things, that two applicants were posted outside the Bench’s territorial jurisdiction and that the 2015 circular had been misinterpreted.

Whether SDA arrears for service in the North Eastern Region before 31 August 2008 could be restricted to employees who had obtained individual court or tribunal orders, excluding otherwise similarly situated non-litigants.

Whether the respondents could recover SDA arrears already paid to the applicants, absent alleged misrepresentation or fraud.

The Tribunal applied Article 14 of the Constitution, reasoning that similarly situated employees should not be treated differently merely because some litigated and others did not.

It relied on K.L. Shepherd & Ors. v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 431, for the principle that benefits established for a class should not be withheld from similarly placed non-litigants.

It also relied on the Gauhati High Court’s decision in W.P.(C) No. 818/2008, which affirmed the CAT Guwahati’s order in O.A. No. 48/2006 and connected cases concerning SDA entitlement.

The Tribunal further held that recovery of payments made under the respondents’ own interpretation of the governing circulars was unsustainable where the applicants were not alleged to have committed fraud or misrepresentation.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were similarly situated to employees whose SDA entitlement had been recognised in the earlier proceedings.

It held that limiting the benefit to individual litigants, while seeking recovery from comparable non-litigants, would be discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 and K.L. Shepherd.

Because the payments had been made pursuant to the respondents’ interpretation of their circulars and there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation by the applicants, the proposed recovery was also unjustified.

It directed that no such recovery be made from the applicants’ pay or pension and ordered any amounts already recovered to be refunded within eight weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The application was disposed of without an order as to costs.