WP(C) 5903/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U.B. SAHA [Katakey, J.] Heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. Chan da, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The petitioners, who are the respondents in O.A. No.23/2011, have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the learned Member, Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, allowing the said application and directing the present petitioners to calculate the Modified Field Area (MFA) allowance admissible to the applicants after deducting the amo unt of Special Compensatory (Remote Locality) [SC(RL)] allowance paid and receiv ed by them with further direction that in future the applicant be paid the MFA a llowance. The entire exercise of computation and payment of arrear was directed to be completed within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the order. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respond ent, who was the original applicant before the Tribunal is not entitled to MFA a llowance but either to non-monetary MFA allowance or SC(RL) allowance, which has been paid to the respondent. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the d irection issued by the learned Tribunal requires interference. Mr. Chanda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other h and, has submitted that though the competent authority vide order dated 24.02.20 09 disposed of the representation filed by the present respondent pursuant to th e directions contained in the order dated 18.09.2007 passed in O.A. No.252/2007, the benefit of the said order was not granted to him, he approached the Tribuna l in O.A. No.23/2011, which was allowed by the aforesaid order keeping in view t he order dated 24.02.2009 passed by the competent authority i.e. the Lt.Col, SO- I(Legal), the Chief Engineer, whereby and whereunder the respondent has been inf ormed that he is entitled to either MFA allowance or SC(RL) allowance w.e.f. 01. 04.1993. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that no illegality has been com mitted by the learned Tribunal in directing payment of MFA allowance in lieu of SC(RL) allowance. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the partie s and also perused the order passed by the Tribunal, which is under challenge in the present proceeding. The petitioners along with others earlier approached the Tribunal in O.A . No.252/2007 claiming MFA allowance or SC(RL) allowance pursuant to the Govt. o f India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 10.01.1992 read with the communication dated 14.01.1994. The said O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 18.09.2007 dir ecting the original applicants to file comprehensive representation before the r espondent authority, who in turn was directed to consider the said representatio n and to pass a speaking order. The competent authority, namely, Lt.Col., SO-I(L egal), the Chief Engineer, thereafter, upon consideration of the representation filed by the respondent, disposed of the same by a speaking order dated 24.02.20 09 with the finding that the applicant should be paid the MFA allowance or the S C(RL) allowance w.e.f. 01.04.1993. By the said order the aforesaid directions co ntained in the aforesaid O.A. has been complied with or implemented. The decision of the competent authority being that the respondent/applic ant would be entitled to either of two allowances, namely, MFA allowance or SC(R L) allowance, there is no reason as to why the respondent shall not be paid the allowance, which is more beneficial to him. The Tribunal keeping in view the afo resaid position, has directed the present petitioners to calculate the differenc e of the two allowances and pay the same to the respondent/ applicant, which, in our considered opinion does not require any interference in exercise of the jur isdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed.