( 1 ) RULE D. B. An order, dated 14 July 1999, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal ) in OA No. 492/1998 forms the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed petitioner s original application seeking a direction to the respondents to permit him to changeover from State Railway Provident Fund (in short srpf ) to the pension scheme, introduced vide Railway Board s letter dated 22 July 1974 and further extended in terms of their letter dated 4 October 1982.

( 2 ) THE background, in which the petition has come to be filed, is as follows:

THE petitioner joined the services of Railways on 24 December 1948 as an Assistant Electrical Engineer on his selection by the Federal Public Service Commission. He superannuated on 31 July 1982 as Chief Administrative Officer, Metropolitan Transport Project (Railways) New Delhi. At the time when the petitioner had joined the service, the Railways had no pension scheme. However, in the year 1957 a retirement benefit scheme known as SRPF was introduced. On the recommendations of the III Pay Commission, in the year 1974, a liberalised pension scheme was introduced. By their letter dated 22 July 1974, the Railway Board decided to give an opportunity to the persons governed by the SRPF scheme to opt for the liberalised pension scheme. Finding it to be not beneficial, the petitioner did not opt for the new scheme, as the Dearness Allowance was not taken into account for the purpose of calculating the pension. However, later on the pensionary benefits were further improved as a result of treatment of a portion of additional Dearness Allowance as pay for the purpose of calculating the pension. Vide letter dated 4 October 1982, the Railway Board decided to give another opportunity to the Railway employees who had continued in the SRPF to come over to the pension scheme. The option was open to those Railway servants who were in service on 31 August 1982 and was to be exercised latest by 28 February 1983. Since the petitioner had retired on 31 July 1982, he was not covered under the scheme. However, by a subsequent letter dated 9 November 1982, the Railway Board preponed the eligibility date to 31 January 1982 and, thus, the petitioner became eligible for fresh pension offer. According to the petitioner the terms of the liberalised pension scheme dated 4 October 1982, as amended by letter dated 9 November 1982, were not brought to his notice as he was out of the country from 31 October 1982 to 13 January 1983 for treatment of his wife. It is averred that the petitioner did not get any intimation from the Railways regarding fresh option to be exercised by him in terms of the liberalised pension scheme announced on 4 October 1982 and amended by letter dated 9 November 1982, even though he was still living in the government accommodation at the relevant time and, therefore, he could not exercise option to switchover to the pension scheme from SRPF. On 13 May 1983, in partial modification of Railway Board s letter dated 9 November 1982, the last date for exercising the option was extended upto 31 August 1983. It is the case of the petitioner that under the pension scheme, introduced vide letter dated 4 October 1982, it was incumbent upon the Railways to inform all the retirees individually about the scheme, more so when they were required to refund Railway contribution to their Provident Fund, in case they were to opt for the pension scheme. But, the petitioner did not receive any communication from the Railways in this behalf. The petitioner claims that some time in February 1997 he learnt about the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of one Sh. DRR Shastri wherein the Court had upheld the direction given by the Tribunal to the Railways to grant the benefit of the pension scheme to Shastri despite the fact that he had exercised option much after the stipulated da