BHAWANI SINGH, CJ. ( 1 ) JUDGMENT of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (CAT), in Original Application No. 809 of 1996. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes miscellaneous Application No. 776 of 1997 dated 20. 9. 1999 and order in Original application No. 386 of 2003 dated 17. 8. 2004, are challenged through these Special civil Applications by Union of India. ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, respondent was working as Carpenter with the petitioners. He was retired from service on 1. 6. 1979 on the ground of medical unfitness. He had joined the Railway service from 1. 4. 1957. He was working as Carpenter at Jawra in 1979. In the medical test, he failed in vision test in 1978, therefore, medically decategorized and retired from service. He sought pensionary benefits alleging interalia that he had exercised option for pensionary benefits which have not been given to him after retirement despite representations to concerned authorities. Accordingly, he moved O. A. No. 809 of 1996 with CAT. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS maintained that respondent was retired because he failed to maintain medical fitness as per Rules, he had opted for S. R. P. F. Scheme, therefore, he had not opted for pension scheme since option for pensionary benefits had not been received from him. Otherwise, matter was hopelessly barred by time. Therefore, for both the reasons, O. A. was liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) CONSEQUENTLY, question whether the respondent had submitted option claiming pensionary benefits fell for consideration before the CAT. By elaborate discussion, CAT held that petitioners had received option, denial on their part could not be believed. It would be relevant to quote paragraph-5 of the judgment in O. A. No. 809 of 1996:"5. Though some attempt was made on the part of the applicant to allege that he was wrongly retired from the service on the ground of being medically unfit, the question does not survive in view of the fact that the retirement of the applicant has not been challenged by the applicant upto till now. Whether the medical test or examination was required or not is not the question to be decided in this application. The only question that arise for our determination is whether the applicant had submitted the option form for pensionary benefits in time and whether this application is barred by limitation or not. Whether the medical test or examination was required or not is not the question to be decided in this application. The only question that arise for our determination is whether the applicant had submitted the option form for pensionary benefits in time and whether this application is barred by limitation or not. The applicant has averred that he had given the option for pensionary benefits on dated 18. 4. 79 and again on dated 19. 1. 85 as per Annexure A/6 and A/7. However, the photocopy of the receipt of the registration article sent by the applicant to the Chief Engineer, Western Railway, Churchgate, Bombay, as well as divisional Manager, Western Railway, Annexure A/5 suggest that two articles were sent on 10. 4. 79 by the applicant. The copy of the letter dated 10. 4. 79 Annexure a/5 suggest that two articles were sent on 10. 4. 79 by the applicant. The copy of the letter dated 10. 4. 79 Annexure A/5 interalia shows that the same was sent to pwi, Joara, General Manager, Western Railway Churchgate, and Divisional superintendent, Western Railway Ratlam. This letter no doubt makes a request to the authority concerned for appointment on compassionate ground of his son which was stated to be of 14 years and 7 months old. However, in the last lines of this letter, it is also stated by the applicant that he was sending pension forms to the General Manager along with the application as there was nobody to accept this form in Divisional Superintendents office. The receipt of the post, annexure A/5 clearly gives right to a presumption that the applicant must have sent this letter by registered post and must have been received by the addressee. There is every possibility that acknowledgment receipt Annexure A/5 showing addressed to K. S. Ramaswamy, General Manager, Western Railway, Bombay purported to have been received on dated 16. 4. 79 must be the acknowledgment of the letter Annexure A/5. This would mean that the applicant had been praying for compassionate appointment of his son all throughout he had also opted for the pensionary benefits and had sent the forms to the General Manager. The respondents have denied that they have received any such option receipts clearly indicated that the applicant had sent such forms and the presumption therefore requires to be drawn that these forms must have been received by the addressee. The respondents have denied that they have received any such option receipts clearly indicated that the applicant had sent such forms and the presumption therefore requires to be drawn that these forms must have been received by the addressee. The respondents have not come out with the clear case of what they had received on dated 16. 4. 79 when the General Managers office had received the registered article on dated 16. 4. 79 vide Annexure A/5. This clearly suggest that the respondents are suppressing the facts and are not coming with clean hands. Their denial of having not received any such option from the applicant therefore cannot be believed. Once we believe that the applicant had submitted an option in the month of April 1979, i. e. prior to his forcible retirement on dated 16. 6. 79, he cannot be denied the pensionary benefits. The respondents have not rejected his option of giving pensionary benefits and therefore, at this juncture they cannot be heard to say that they are not liable to pay the pension to the applicant. They also now cannot be heard to contend that the application is barred by limitation. Once it is evident that the option is exercised by the applicant to avail the pensionary benefits rather than to be governed by the provident fund scheme, the cause of action for filing such an application arose to the applicant every month when he has not received the pension. It is undisputed position that the pension is payable every month and the denial of this is not tenable. Therefore, every month gives rise to a cause of action to the applicant for filing this o. A. The question of limitation does not survive as the cause of action for filing such O. A. is a recurring cause of action and the applicant is very much entitled to agitate his grievance of non receiving of pension at any time. It was submitted by Mr. Shevde that the applicant has been paid retiral benefits of provident fund scheme and having been accepted the amount of provident fund scheme, it does not lie in the mouth of the applicant to contend that he is entitled to pensionary benefits. It is to be borne in mind that the applicant is a semi literate poor Carpenter who had been agitating his grievance right from the date of his retirement. It is to be borne in mind that the applicant is a semi literate poor Carpenter who had been agitating his grievance right from the date of his retirement. He has practically lost his vision and has been retire by the respondents on the ground of his having been become medically unfit to carry out his work. We cannot blame the applicant that having been accepted the amount of provident fund scheme, but mere acceptance on the part of the applicant of the amount of the provident fund scheme, does not mean that his claim for the pension scheme has come to an end. The equity demands that the claim should have been allowed much earlier. . . . " ( 5 ) ASSESSMENT and conclusions drawn by CAT are absolutely logical and based on proper appreciation of facts of the case. It is a fact finding conclusion of CAT based on legal evidence which are on record. Therefore, we have no disagreement with the same, we agree with the conclusions and reject the contention repeated by petitioners that option from respondent was not received. Another facet of the question, though not raised before the CAT, is that option is not in proper form, simple mention thereof in communication is not enough. This contention does not appeal to us for the reason that having lost on the main question, this is a hyper-technical objection, which an employer like Railways cannot be permitted to raise, when in substance, information of option is received by it from the respondent. ( 6 ) NEXT question pertains to limitation in filing the O. A. Respondent is a medically decategorized, low paid Railway Carpenter, having been boarded out from service in 1979, persistently filing representations seeking pension, opposing persisted efforts by Railways of closing the doors against his way of communicating the option. Ultimately, the respondent filed O. A. before the CAT which rightly allowed the same holding that claim for pension gives rise to continuous cause of action till it is accepted. Further, the respondent approached the CAT when he failed to secure relief from the petitioners. Ultimately, the respondent filed O. A. before the CAT which rightly allowed the same holding that claim for pension gives rise to continuous cause of action till it is accepted. Further, the respondent approached the CAT when he failed to secure relief from the petitioners. Having succeeded in O. A. No. 809 of 1996, petitioners did not implement the same, therefore, the respondent is driven to file another O. A. No. 386 of 2003 for execution of order passed in O. A. No. 809 of 1996, meeting all the challenges raised by the petitioners. (See: Union of India v. Bhavdutt R. Dwivedi, Retd. A grade Driver Special Civil Application No. 13519 of 2000 decided on 6. 7. 2001 and Division Bench, Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench decision in Viju w/o. Manohar Sawle v. Secretary, Government of India and others 2005 II CLR 940 ). ( 7 ) LAST question which is raised for consideration is that CAT, Ahmedabad, had no jurisdiction to entertain the O. A. Wading through all the papers, particularly, written statement and submissions advanced before the CAT in two cases referred to above, we find that such a plea has not been raised. Even there is no whisper of it in the Special Civil Applications. This contention is belated and ought not have been raised after the litigation commenced from 1996 with respect to pensionary benefits which fell due to the respondent on his retirement in 1979. Enough is enough. Railways should now implement the CAT orders in letter and spirit within two months. Respondent is stated to be 84 year old. Therefore, moving for filling up the forms and meeting other official requirements physically may be impossible for him. Therefore, Railways will get them filled and shall pay pension to the respondent with interest at the rate of 9% p. a. from the due date till payment. Consequently, petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/- in each petition. Notice discharged. Interim order (s), granted earlier, shall stand vacated. .