WP(C) 1652/2001 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY ( Lokur, CJ ): The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 20th July, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Original Application No .136/2000. The respondent, who was ordinarily a resident of Kerala was selected as a Clerk Grade-II in the All India Radio, Tezu ( Arunachal Pradesh). The appoint ment letter dated 11th August, 1993 specifically mentions in clause 6 that the appointee is liable to be posted and transferred anywhere in India. In clause 1 4 it is mentioned that he will be liable to transfer at any time including to a public corporation. When the respondent was posted in the North Eastern Region, he was grant ed Special Duty Allowance. That Special Duty Allowance continued until it was su ddenly stopped by the petitioners with effect from December,1997. Under the circumstances, the respondent filed an Original Application before th e Tribunal in which it was prayed that the Special Duty Allowance be restored t o him. The Tribunal acceded to the prayer of the respondent and directed the pet itioners to restore the Special Duty Allowance. Our attention has been drawn to an Office Memorandum dated 12th January, 1996. This Office Memorandum dated 12.1.1996 is issued by the Government of In dia, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. The Office Memorandum makes a reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in U.O.I. and others vs. S.Vija yakumar 1994(28) ATC 598. The Supreme Court held in that decision that Special D uty Allowance is granted for retaining the services of competent officers in the North Eastern Region. The Tribunal relied on this decision to hold that the respondent was posted in the North Eastern Region and because of inaccessibilit y and difficult terrain, he was entitled to the Special Duty Allowance. It is contended before us by learned counsel for the petitioners that th e respondent was in fact appointed and posted to serve in the North Eastern Reg ion and as such he is not entitled to get any Special Duty Allowance. We have a lready made a reference to the appointment letter issued to the respondent and t here is no such indication that the respondent was recruited only to work in th e North Eastern Region. On the contrary, the appointment letter mentions that t he respondent is liable to All India transfer including transfer to a public corporation. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the decision taken by t he Tribunal is unexceptionable. There is no occasion to interfere with the orde r of the Tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed.