Judgment :- (Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief as stated therein.) A.R. Ramalingam, J. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench on 17.1.2002 in O.A.No.128 of 2001, filed by one K.P.Balakrishnan against the Union of India rep. by the Secretary, Railway Board, New Delhi and the General Manager, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai wherein the relief’s of quashing the orders of the respondents dated 7.12.1999 and 10.1.1992 and direction to reckon the pay of the applicant on part with his junior with effect from 1.1.1986 as the said Balakrishnan is entitled to arrears of pay and allowance arising out of such refixation of his pay and consequent arrears of pension, the Union of India rep. by the Secretary, Railway Board, New Delhi and the General Manager, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai have filed this writ petition. 2. The case of the said K.P.Balakrishnan before the Central Administrative Tribunal can be briefly stated as hereunder:- The said Balalkrishnan joined Railway as Khalasi Helper in the year 1957. He was promoted as Junior Progressman in the year 1963. Subsequently, he was promoted as Progressman with higher scale of pay of Rs.1320-2040 in the year 1988. He retired from service on 30.4.1992. Whileso, in pursuance of the recommendations of the third Central Pay Commission, the revised pay scales came into force from 1.1.1973. For this, options were given to all employees to switch over to the new scale of pay with effect from 1.1.1973 or on a date subsequent to 1.1.1973 and in this connection, the last date for exercising the option was fixed upto 31.12.1974 and then the time limit was extended till 31.12.1975 and then on representations of the Employees Association, the time limit was further extended till 31.12.1979 and then lastly extended upto 27.8.1984. On the other hand, the case of the Railway Administration before the Tribunal is to the effect that the said Balakrishnan had failed to exercise his option in spite of several chances and his option was submitted belatedly after 4-1/2 months from the last date viz., 27.8.1984 and it was rejected. On the other hand, the case of the Railway Administration before the Tribunal is to the effect that the said Balakrishnan had failed to exercise his option in spite of several chances and his option was submitted belatedly after 4-1/2 months from the last date viz., 27.8.1984 and it was rejected. The applicant's claim was that his option was well within time and thereby the pay fixation has been correctly made in June 1988 and at Rs.1640/= on par with his juniors and subsequently, however, without giving notice to the said Balakrishnan, it was corrected in the year 1989 by reducing at Rs.1600/= from Rs.1640/=. Further, the applicant had retired subsequent to the correction as per the Office Order dated 30.6.1988. The representations made by the said Balakrishnan in this connection were not considered and they were rejected and final reply has been given by the Railway Administration in the year 1999 to that effect. 3. After having heard the submissions in the light of the material records available on either side, the Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed O.A.No.128 of 2001. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Railway Administration, after leading us through the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the light of the material papers furnished in the typed set, submitted the following salient aspects in respect of the contention that the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is liable to be set aside. The said Balakrishnan did not submit his option in time and in fact, he himself had expressed in his representation that he had some difficulties at the time of submitting the option due to his mother's sickness and other problems and consequent death of his mother and however, he has chosen to produce a certificate from his superior dated 19.5.1990 indicating therewith that his option dated 13.7.1984 has already been sent for the purpose of fixing the revised scale of pay as per the third pay commission recommendations. Further, he has written a letter dated 5.7.1990 to the Deputy C.P.O./M, Integral Coach Factory disclosing therewith that his option dated 9.1.1985 may kindly be treated in lieu of the original one and pleading mercy of the said Deputy CPO(M) for reconsidering fixation of his revised pay on par with his juniors. 5. Further, he has written a letter dated 5.7.1990 to the Deputy C.P.O./M, Integral Coach Factory disclosing therewith that his option dated 9.1.1985 may kindly be treated in lieu of the original one and pleading mercy of the said Deputy CPO(M) for reconsidering fixation of his revised pay on par with his juniors. 5. On the other hand, his stand as if the option was already submitted on 13.7.1984 and it could have been lost during the transit and thereby his another option dated 9.1.1985 can be treated as original one in the place of his option dated 13.7.1984 has not been accepted by the Railway Administration on the basis that it is a belated one inspite of the fact that sufficient time was given to the employees for the purpose of exercising their option even by extending the time limit thrice. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the Railway Administration also pointed out that there are number of cases about 400 like this from various parts of the country and if this case of Balakrishnan were to be entertained, it would be very much difficult for the Railway administration to deal with the other cases of similar nature pertaining to the number of employees of the Railway and there would be no end for determining such cases. 6. It was also submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal has been carried away upon the fact that the Railway Administration has extended the last date from time to time, and found that there is no reason as to why the delay in exercising the option pertaining to Balakrishnan cannot be condoned and likewise, when there is discrepancy or disparity between the fixation of scale of pay for Balakrishnan and his two juniors, such disparity can be rectified by the Railways in the interest of justice and equity and there cannot be much hardship to the Railways and that further, the delay in submitting the option by Balakrishnan alone cannot be a valid and sustainable ground for refusing to set right the disparity in fixing the scale of pay. He also pointed out that the said Balakrishnan, after having failed to submit his option within the time due to his various personal reasons, has attempted to take a stand as if he has already submitted his option within the time on the strength of a certificate said to have been issued by one K.V.Narayanasamy, another Progressman of Integral Coach Factory and his affidavit indicating as if Balakrishnan has submitted his option in time along with him and the option of Balakrishnan was presumed to be lost in transit. But, such a certificate or affidavit has not been relied or believed by the Railway Administration for the reason that the person who issued the certificate and affidavit is not the superior of Balakrishnan and he is only another Progressman like Balakrishnan in the same cadre and the certificate or affidavit is not based upon any materials indicating the despatch date, covering letter or acknowledgment, etc., so as to say that the option of Balakrishnan could have been lost during transit. It is more so when the time limit has been extended from time to time twice or thrice and whileso, the said Balakrishnan, if he is prudent, ought to have given the option first and then revised option consecutively till the last date is over. In other words, it is surprising and too much on the part of Balakrishnan to contend as if he submitted only one option during the entire period of time given by the Railway Administration to submit the options by the employees and that the sole option also could have been lost during transit that too without any copy of the option attached to the concerned Registers or his Service Register, etc. 7. In support of the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Railway Administration, the ruling of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in KRISHENA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA ( (1990) 4 SCC 207 ), rendered by Honourable five Judges, was relied on for a proposition of law that an employee or employees, who failed to exercise the option within time, will not be entitled to the benefits. In the said decision, it has been held to the effect that "If any employee fails to exercise the option even though sufficient opportunity was given, he cannot claim to include his option at a later point of time to his advantage." By applying the above said ruling, the applicant Balakrishnan also cannot be heard to say as if he is entitled to claim the benefits of fixation of pay, pension, etc., irrespective of his failure to submit his option within the time stipulated by the Railway Administration. 8. The approach and reasoning of the Central Administrative Tribunal that in the interest of justice, equity, etc., the delay in submitting the option by Balakrishnan can be condoned and consequently, his pay and consequent pension can be revised, in our view, are not correct and reasonable and justified. The fact remains that the disparity in pay fixation between Balakrishnan and his two other juniors comes in only because of the failure of Balakrishnan to submit his option within the time allowed. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the Railway Administration, the case of Balakrishnan cannot be lightly or leniently viewed as if his grievance is a justified one without taking note of the practical difficulties of the Railway Administration and discipline and consistency to be maintained by them among the employees cannot be accepted and thereby the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in favour of the applicant Balakrishnan, in our considered view, has to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside. No costs.