Satheesh Kumar K.M. and others v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited and others

W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN MONDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 19TH POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 1265 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 SATHEESH KUMAR K.M., AGED 58 YEARS S/O. M.K. MADHAVAN, SAUPARNIKA, MAALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686019. 2 ABDUL RAHIMAN A., AGED 57 YEARS S/O. ABDUL KARIM M.A., 1/330, MUYMANATH HOUSE, THANNISSERY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3 ALOUSHY PAUL C., AGED 57 YEARS S/O. C.P. POULOSE, CHERADIYAL HOUSE NO. 662/IX, NEAR GIRIJYOTHI COLLEGE, THANNIKANDOM, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., PIN-685602. 4 ANANADAKUMAR, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. SATHIPALAN T.R., THAIVEETTIL, POWERHOUSE ROAD, MOOLAMATTOM P.O., ELAPPALLY-685589. 5 ANGY ALEX, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. PHILIP JOHN, FLAT G-E, SANIYA APARTMENTS, KAIRALI STREET, ASHOKA ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN682017, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 2 6 ANNAMMA P., AGED 57 YEARS W/O. K.U. BABY (LATE) AND D/O. K. PAPPEN, KANIYADAN HOUSE, PMC 21/617, VIP COLONY, COURT ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683542. 7 BABU MOHAN P.P., AGED 58 YEARS S/O. P.E. PONNAPPAN, PARWATHI NIVAS, CHANNANIKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM-686533. 8 BEENA GOPINATH S., AGED 56 YEARS W/O. SABU K.S., GAYATHRI, NEAR AMRITHA VIDYALAYAM, TKM COLLEGE P.O., KOLLAM-5. 9 BEENA PIOUS, AGED 57 YEARS W/O. PRIYALAL JOSEPH, ABADALE, DMRA NO.2, KAIKULANGARA(W), CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM-691013. 10 BETTY T. MATHEW, AGED 57 YEARS W/O. JACOB SEBASTIAN, PANACHINANICKEL, PALA P.O., PIN-686575. 11 BIJU T. KURIAN, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. KURIAN T.K., THADAMURIYIL, LAKKATTOOR, KOTTAYAM-686502. 12 BINU MAREEN A. JOHN, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. TOM SEBASTIAN, THUMPEPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANAYATHI KAVALA, SREEKANDAMANGALAM P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686562. 13 ELIZABETH KURIAN VAHANATTU, AGED 55 YEARS W/O. JACOB K. VARKEY, KONNAYIL HOUSE, PANAYAKAZHIPPU, NAGAMPADOM, KOTTAYAM-686001. W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 3 14 GEETHA R., AGED 56 YEARS W/O. RAVIKUMAR N., HOUSE NO.32/1329 - B, PARC108, VATTATHIPPADAM ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O., KOCHI-682025. 15 GEETHA M., AGED 58 YEARS W/O. JAWAHARJI K., NANMA, TC 40/1073(10), CLRA 47A, SREEVARAHAM, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 16 GIGY JOHN, AGED 58 YEARS W/O. JOHNSON JOHN, T.C. 4/227, KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-695003. 17 GIRIJA B., AGED 59 YEARS W/O. RAJAN P.S. SARASWATHY MANDIRAM, KAPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 18 GIRIJA R., AGED 57 YEARS W/O. SUKESAN S., T.C. 35/2389, VAIKUNDAM, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., MVRA 11, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695013. 19 GIRISH M., AGED 58 YEARS S/O. G. MURALIDHARAN PILLAI, PERUKUNNATH, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690506. 20 HARIDAS PANIKKAR, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. KSG PANIKKAR, GAYATHRI, VENKATESPURAM COLONY, BLOCK F 28, PUTHUR, PALAKKAD-678001. W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 4 21 JALAJA T., AGED 58 YEARS W/O. ANANDAN K., CHAITHRAM, PALLIYARA, MULAVANA, KUNDARA, KOLLAM. 22 JOHNY M.P., AGED 58 YEARS S/O.PRINCHU M.A., MOOTHEDAN HOUSE, V.R. PURAM P.O., CHALAKUDY, PIN-680722. 23 JOMINI THOMAS, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. P.S. ABRAHAM, PAYYAMPALLIL HOUSE, SOUTH PAMPADY P.O., KOTTAYAM-686521. 24 JOY P.V., AGED 58 YEARS S/O. VARKEY V., SHARON HOUSE, MIDAYIKUNNU POST, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM-686605. 25 JUBIN JOHN, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. N.I. JOHN, NEDUMCHIRA, 119/2, J.P. NAGAR R.S. P.O., THIRUVALLA-689111. 26 K.C. THOMAS, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. K.T. CHERIAN, THORANAM VACHATHIL, KANAKKARI P.O., KOTTAYAM. 27 LUSAMMA JOSE, AGED 56 YEARS W/O. THOMAS JOSE, MANANTHIL HOUSE, CHEMMANATHUKARA P.O., VAIKOM-686606. 28 MADHAVAN K., AGED 57 YEARS S/O. KUNJAN, KARTHIKA, OLASSERY P.O., KODUMBU, PALAKKAD-678551. W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 5 - 29 MANIKANDHAN K., AGED 57 YEARS S/O. M.D. NAIR (LATE), JYOTHIS, KADAKURUSSI, THIRUNELLAI ROAD, KANNADI POST, PALAKKAD-678701. - 30 MANJULA BHANU VIKRAMAN, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. PROF. T. ASOKAN, SWARAGANGA, EDACHERRY ROAD, PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR-670004. - 31 MEENA S., AGED 58 YEARS - W/O. N. VENUGOPAL, KRA 26, KRISHNA KANIYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA-688003. - 32 MEHARUNNISA M., AGED 57 YEARS W/O. MOHAMMED T.P., TC 12/1069-1, SR 10A, LAW COLLEGE ROAD, VANCHIYUR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -35. - 33 MINI P. NAYAR. AGED 58 YEARS W/O. HARI V.G., T.C. 27/1229, INDEEVARAM, PATTOOR ROAD, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035. - 34 MOHAMMED E., AGED 58 YEARS S/O. ESMAIL PILLAI, VILAYILVEEDU, KALOOR, MANJAMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695313. - 35 MOLYKUTTY ANDREWS, AGED 57 YEARS W/O. ROY JACOB, VADAKKEMANDAPATHIL, AIMCOMBU 6TH MILE, KADANAD P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. - 36 NISHA P.P., AGED 57 YEARS W/O. RAVINDRAN C.V., HARITHAM, CHETTUPUZHA P.O. W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 6 - 37 P.A. SADARUDHEEN, AGED 57 YEARS - S/O.P.K. ABDUL LATHIEF, 36/697, PATTANI STREET, PALAKKAD-678014. - 38 PAUL GEORGE, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. M.C. GEORGE, MATTAPALLIL, MIDAYIKUNNU P.O., KOTTAYAM-686605. - 39 PAULY K.P., AGED 56 YEARS S/O. PAILY K.V., KARIMALIKKAL HOUSE, MULLAKKARA, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680651. - 40 PRABHA P.A., AGED 57 YEARS W/O. DR. RAMACHANDRA WARRIER T.S., MANJUTHARA, PERUMBALLOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. - 41 PRADEEP K. VARMA, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. M. KERALA VARMA RAJA, TRIVEY, MADATHIL KOVILAKAM, CMC-11, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688524. - 42 PRADEEP KUMAR N.K., AGED 57 YEARS S/O. PADMANABHAN N.K., ANANDABHAVAN, SOUTH GATE, VAIKOM P.O., PIN-686141. 43 PRASANNAKUMARI A., AGED 58 YEARS W/O. PARAMESWARA PANICKER, AMBADY, VELLANJILIPARAMB, KOMANA, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688561. 44 PRATHAPACHANDRAN R., AGED 58 YEARS S/O. T.K. RAJAPPAN NAIR, KAUSTHUBHAM, PERUMPANACHY P.O., CHANGANACHERRY-686536. W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 7 - 45 P.T. SEENATH BEEVI, AGED 57 YEARS W/O. M.S. FAIZI, KRIPA, MADANCOVILLANE, PARUTHIPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-25. - 46 P.V. JYOTHI, AGED 59 YEARS W/O. N. RAJAGOPAL, NANDANA, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686004. - 47 RADHIKA NAIR, AGED 56 YEARS W/O. T. LAKSHMANAN NAIR, VENNAKARA EAST, NURANI POST, PALAKKAD-678004. - 48 RAHAMMATHULLAH A., AGED 57 YEARS S/O. K. ABDUL KADER, KAK HOUSE, PUDUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD-678731. - 49 REEMA D., AGED 57 YEARS W/O. RAJEDNDRAN R., PUTHIYAKKAL HOUSE, KAREEPRA, KUZHIMATHICADU P.O., KUNDARA. - 50 R. RAJASHREE, AGED 57 YEARS W/O. G. GOPAKUMAR, SARANG HOUSE, NO.1116A, INDIRA ROAD, EDAPPALLY P.O., PIN-682024. - 51 REMY GEORGE, AGED 57 YEARS W/O. JOY V.M., VEZHUMPACHERIL HOUSE, H. NO. 290/38D, V C ANTONY ROAD, THRIKKAKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. - 52 ROSHINI MARIAM THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS W/O. ITTYERA THOMAS, PUTHUSSERIL, CHURCH ROAD, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA-688011. W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 8 53 SAJAN K.K., AGED 57 YEARS S/O. S.K.PILLAI, MIDHUNAM, PONKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686506. 54 SAJEEV K., AGED 57 YEARS S/O. KARUNAKARAN U.S., SOUPARNIKA, ADOOPARAMBU, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686661. 55 SAJI P.R., AGED 57 YEARS S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR V.P., PARAPPALLIL, KOORALI P.O., KOTTAYAM-686522. 56 SANTHA C.J., AGED 57 YEARS W/O. R. SURESHKUMAR, VINAYAKA, VAIKOM P.O., PIN686141. 57 SERJI CHERIAN, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. A.J. CHERIAN, ALUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, VEROOR P.O., CHANGANACHERRY-686104. 58 SHJAN V.N., AGED 57 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN E.K., EDATHALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MAMALA P.O., THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 59 SHAJI S. KOTTARAM, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. SEBASTIAN, NEELOOR P.O., PALA-686651. 60 SHEEBA I., AGED 56 YEARS W/O. S. SALIM, OTTATHENGIL, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM-683574. W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 9 61 SOOSAMMA JACOB, AGED 57 YEARS W/O. SONI K. THOMAS, PALLATHUPARAMBIL, KOLLADU P.O., KOTTAYAM-686004. 62 SOSAMMA KURUVILA, AGED 56 YEARS W/O. GEORGE JOSEPH, PERIYALATHU HOUSE, KAVUNGUMPRAYAR P.O., PURAMATTOM, THIRUVALLA689543. 63 SREELETHA S., AGED 56 YEARS W/O. G. SHASHIKUMAR, 9A, LOTUS PADMAHARA, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA MADOM, STATUE JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682301. 64 SUJATHA R.S., AGED 57 YEARS S/O. MURALEEDHRAN NAIR S., T.C. 55/1589, KSRA D4, KULATHARA KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 65 SUNNY JOSEPH, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. C.K. JOSEPH, CHERUSSERIL HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686542. 66 SURESH CHAND C., AGED 58 YEARS S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR A.N., AHAKATHU, OPP. MUNSIFF COURT, PONKUNNAM, PIN-686506. 67 SURESH KUMAR N., AGED 56 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, MADHAVA MANDIRAM, S.L. PURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688523. W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 10 68 SURESH T.R., AGED 56 YEARS S/O. RAMAN, THUMBRATHUKUDY HOUSE, SOUTH OF OKAY HOSPITAL, LOKAMALLESWARAM, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680664. 69 SUSAN JACOB P., AGED 58 YEARS PAULOSE, HOUSE NO.17, THEKKILAKKATTU HOUSE, SHANTHI NAGAR, NEAR KUROOR BRIDGE, KOTHAMANGALAM686691. 70 USHA E.K., AGED 57 YEARS W/O. RAJEEVAN V.K., XVI-246, USHUS, AZAD ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683101. 71 USHA VARGHESE, AGED 57 YEARS W.I, CHANDY N. GEORGE, NELLIMOOTTIL HOUSE, MUNDIAPPALLY P.O., KUNNAMTHANAM, THIRUVALLA689581. 72 VENUGOPAL G., AGED 57 YEARS SAKETHAM, S/O. N. GOPINATHA PANICKER, VIKASNAGAR, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., PIN-686661. 73 VIJAYA RAJ S.T., AGED 57 YEARS S/O. D. SIKHAMONI, T.C. 44/1641, BETH-HARAN, JWRA-80, KOCHAR ROAD, JAGATHY, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. 74 VINODU KUMAR K.N., AGED 56 YEARS S/O. K.A. NANU, VIRAD, VENDUVAZHI, NORTH KOTHAMANGALAM-686691. W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 11 75 AJITHKUMAR N.K., AGED 57 YEARS S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, NJAYAPPALLIL, THRIKOTHAMANGALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 76 SEN K.S., AGED 59 YEARS S/O. K.A. SANKUNNY, KANNARKKATT, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688525. BY ADVS. VINAY KUMAR VARMA N.K.KARNIS ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY ADV SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2023, THE COURT ON 09.01.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 12 ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.1265 of 2022** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9[th] day of January, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** ## 1.This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: _“_ A. Call for the records leading upto Exhibit P4. B. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside Exhibit P3 to the extent that it specifies a cut off date for claiming commutation of pension at the revised rates of pay and allowances as sanctioned by Exhibit P2. C. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to initiate necessary action to declare that the petitioners are entitled to arrears of commutation of pension computed at the revised rates of pay and allowances as sanctioned by Exhibit P2.” 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 13 3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners retired from service of the 1[st] respondent on various dates between 1/7/2018 and 1/04/2021. It is submitted that by Ext.P1 Board order, pay revision was effected for the officers and workmen of the Board. By Ext.P2, the 1[st] respondent notified revision of pay and allowances retrospectively w.e.f 1/7/2018. By Ext.P3, pension was also revised in respect of employees, who had retired on or after 1/7/2018. However, by Ext.P3 order commutation of pension at revised rates was restricted to officers, who retired on or after 1/4/2021 alone. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since revision of pension has been approved with retrospective effect from 1/7/2018, the petitioners, who retired between 1/7/2018 and 1/4/2021 are also eligible for a commutation of the revised pension and denial of the same by Ext.P3 is discriminatory and against the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in **D.S.Nakara & others v.Union of India** [1983(1)SCC 305]. W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 14 4.It is further submitted that Appendix X of Part III, KSR lays down the rules for commutation of pension and there is no bar for grant of arrears of commutation at revised rates of pension with retrospective effect. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioners, who have been given the benefit of pension revision w.e.f 1/7/2018 are also entitled to commute 40% of their revised pension. It is contended that pension being an incident of service, the right to commute pension would be concurrent with the said right and therefore, the petitioners would be entitled to the relief as sought for. - 5.A decision of the Apex court in **Chief General Manager Gujarat Telecom Circle, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd and others v. Manilal Ambalal Patel and another** [2019 (14) SCC 232] is also relied on to contend that commutation of pension is nothing but payment of a portion of the pension calculated on a formula based on the Rules and that commutation flows out of the right of the employee to receive pension. It was found that where the pensioner is entitled to commutation and makes a proper application along with all W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 15 necessary documents, such application has to be considered and commutation has to be granted. 6.A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents contending that the petitioners have been granted all the benefits of the pay and pension revision orders, including the revision of their pensions w.e.f 1/7/2018. It is submitted that Ext.P3 order specifically provides that the entitlement to commute pension admissible on revised pay and pension is restricted and applicable only prospectively, that is, in respect of employees, who retired on or after 1/4/2021. It is contended in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit as follows:- 5. Commutation means exchange of a portion of the monthly pension by a pensioner, for a lump sum amount to be received in advance. It is the option of the pensioner to or not to commute his/her portion of the monthly pension and the amount commuted shall be recovered in future. Normally, commutation amount is calculated based on the pay of the employee at the time of retirement. For Government employees, there is a practice that the date of effect for commutation on revised pension and the date of revision of pension will be the same. In Kerala State Electricity Board Limited, the same method was followed up to 1998 Pension Revision. From 2003 Pension Revision onwards, the system of granting commutation in Kerala State Electricity Board W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 16 Limited has changed from that of Government. Both in Government and Kerala State Electricity Board Limited, Pay/Pension Revision was revised after the expiry of every five years. But in Government, due to financial constraints during 2003, pay/pension revision was given effect from 01.07.2004 instead of 01.07.2003. Even though pension/pay was revised with effect from 01.07.2004, the enhanced rate of commutation from 33 1/3% to 40% was made applicable only to employees retired on or after 01.03.2006. Later, the Government adopted a 5 year formulae for the revision of Pay/Pension, and the date of effect of the next revisions were 01.07.2009, 01.07.2014 and 01.07.2019. Accordingly, the commutation of Government Pensioners at the revised rate was given effect from the date of Pay revision mentioned above. But in Kerala State Electricity Board Limited, the revision of Pension/Pay was effected after a regular 5 year interval such as 01.07.2003/01.08.2003, 01.07.2008/01.08.2008, 1/7/2013/1/8/2013 and 1/7/2018/1/8/2018. Commutation based on revised pay was calculated not based on the date of effect of pension revision but based on the month on which revision order was released. ## 6.The date of effect of various pay/pay revision |Revision|Date of effect of Revised|Date of effect of| |---|---|---| |Year|Pay|commutation| |2003|01.07.2003/01.08.2003|01.09.2007| |2008|01.07.2008/01.08.2008|01.05.2012| |2013|01.07.2013/01.08.2013|01.04.2016| |2018|01.07.2018/01.08.2018|01.04.2021| W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 17 7.It is further submitted that the Apex court has repeatedly held that a cut off date fixed by executive authority keeping in view economic conditions, financial constraints and other administrative and other circumstances should not be interfered with by the court unless it is blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary. The decisions of the Apex Court in **Government of Andhra Pradesh and others V.N.Subbarayudu and others** [2008 (14) SCC 702] and in **Union of India v. SR.Dhingra and others** [2008(2)SCC 229] as well as several other decisions are referred to. 8.A judgment of this Court dated 7/2/2018 in WP(c) No.4315/2017 is also specifically relied on. Paragraph 3 of the said judgment would show that the contentions of the petitioners therein with regard to commutation of pension in the earlier revisions were identical as in this case. After considering the contentions, this Court held as follows:- “7. In this case what is restricted is the commutation of pension. The benefit of pension is not denied to persons like petitioners. The petitioners are persons, who have already enjoyed the benefit of commutation based on pre- W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 18 revised pension, as soon as they retired from service. When revision is ordered as per Ext.P2, their pension has undergone revision and they are getting pension at revised rates every month. Even though, they do not get a lump sum payment in advance, they are getting revised monthly pension without any reduction towards commutation. Therefore, except for the advance payment, there is no denial of the benefit. The respondents have stated that there are innumerable persons who have to be paid the benefit. In the judgment referred to by the learned Senior Counsel, it is specifically noted that there were only 200 to 250 Senior Scale Lectures, who are the beneficiaries of the judgment. 8.The learned Standing Counsel pointed out that the revision was ordered after a consensus was arrived at with the Officers Associations and a Circular was issued on 23.03.2016 providing for the revision. Even though, there is no bar in challenging the provisions in the pension revision order, even if, the Officers Associations did not have any objection in restriction of pension on the cut off date, there is nothing wrong in fixing a cut off date, on the basis of financial burden. As the Division Bench has in **Kerala State** **Electricity Board v. Reghukumar** [2012 (1) KLT 199] upheld similar provision in the previous pay revision and held that such restrictions can be imposed, keeping in view of the economic conditions and financial constraints, I am bound to follow the said judgment.” W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 19 9.With regard to the contentions of the petitioners based on the decision of the Apex Court in **All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary v. State of Manipur and others** [2020(14)SCC 625] **,** it is contended that the dispute was with regard to different methods adopted for calculating the revised pension for Government employees, who retired on or after 1/1/1996 and it was in the said situation that the Apex Court found that there is discrimination meted out to pre-1996 retirees and post-1996 retirees. 10.The contentions of the petitioners that they are entitled to commutation of pension is not disputed. As a matter of fact, they were granted the benefits of such commutation also immediately after retirement. The only question would be whether the stipulation in Ext.P3 that commutation of revised pension will be permitted only in case of persons, who retired after 01/04/2021 is arbitrary or discriminatory. 11.Having considered the contentions advanced, I am in respectful agreement with the learned single Judge of this W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 20 Court in the judgment relied on by the respondents. The petitioners have been granted the benefit of revision of pension w.e.f 1/7/2018. The order impugned only fixes a cut off date of 01/04/2021, with regard to the grant of benefits of commutation of the revised pension. Therefore, it appears that for the purpose of commutation of pension Ext.P3 order is prospective in nature. The decision with regard to acceptance of a proposal for revision of pay and pension is admittedly an administrative act, which has to be carried out by the employer concerned. Being an administrative decision, which has to be taken, taking note of all relevant factors including economic and financial constraints, an interference in such a decision would be justified only if there are compelling reasons, including glaring instances of discrimination. In the instance case, no benefit has been denied to the petitioners by Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3, which authorises the revision of pension only states that commutation would be permissible only in respect of retirees from 01/04/2021. Commutation admittedly is a benefit, which is granted by statutory provisions. I fail to see, what substantive right of the petitioners stands infringed W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 21 by the decision taken in Ext.P3 to grant commutation only prospectively. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prayers sought for in the writ petition cannot be allowed. This writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. **==> picture [27 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** **Anu Sivaraman, Judge** sj W.P.(C).No.1265 of 2022 22 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1265/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER O. BO (DB) NO.133/2021(PSI/2617/PR/2018) TVPM DATED 15/02/2021. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER NO. BO (FTD) NO.171/2021 (PSI/2617/PR/2018) TVPM DATED 26/02/2021. Exhibit P3 TRUECOPY OF THE BOARD ORDER NO. BO (FTD) NO.172/2021 (PSI/498/PENSION REVISION/2021) TVPM DATED 26/02/2021. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER NO. BO (FB) NO.1664/2002 (ESTT.VII/7629/2002) DATED 10/12/2002. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER BO (FB) NO.1313/2011 (PSI/GRATUITY/2006) DATED 24/05/2011. True copy PS to Judge