High Court of KeralaDivision BenchWrit appeal dismissed; petitioners' challenge r...

W.A. No. 353 of 2023 (Kerala High Court)

Case / Petition Number:W.A.353/2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • S. V. Bhatti
  • Basant Balaji
Judgment Date
2023-02-14
Court Decision / Holding
The writ appeal is dismissed. The court held that the policy decision on commutation dates constitutes a prerogative of the employer and not typically subject to interference by a writ court, absent glaring discrimination.
Final Disposition
Writ appeal dismissed; petitioners' challenge rejected.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • SATHEESH KUMAR K.M.
  • ABDUL RAHIMAN A.
  • ANGY ALEX
  • ANNAMMA P.
  • BABU MOHAN P.P.
  • BEENA GOPINATH S.
  • BEENA PIOUS
  • BETTY.T.MATHEW
  • BIJU.T.KURIAN
  • BINU MAREEN.A.JOHN
  • ELIZABETH KURIAN
  • GEETHA M.
  • GIGY ELZY JOHN
  • GIRIJA R.
  • GIRISH M.
  • JOHNY.M.P.
  • JOMINI THOMAS
  • JOY P.V.
  • JUBIN JOHN
  • MADHAVAN.K.
  • MANIKANDHAN K.
  • MANJULA BHANU VIKRAMAN
  • MEENA S.
  • MEHARUNNISA M
  • MINI P.NAYAR
  • MOHAMMED E.
  • MOLLYKUTTY ANDREWS
  • NISHA P.P.
  • P.A. SADARUDHEEN
  • PAUL GEORGE
  • PAULY K.P.
  • PRABHA P.A.
  • PRADEEP K.VARMA
  • PRADEEP KUMAR N.K.
  • PRASANNAKUMARI A.
  • P.T.SEENATH BEEVI
  • P.V. JYOTHI
  • RADHIKA NAIR
  • RAHAMMATHULLAH A.
  • REEMA D.
  • R. RAJASHREE
  • REMY GEORGE
  • ROSHNI MARIAM THOMAS
  • SAJAN K.K.
  • SAJEEV.K.
  • SAJI P.R.
  • SANTHA C.J.
  • SERJI CHERIAN
  • SHAJAN V.N.
  • SHAJI S.KOTTARAM
  • SHEEBA I.
  • SOOSAMMA JACOB
  • SOSAMMA KURUVILA
  • SREELETHA S.
  • SUJATHA R.S
  • SUNNY JOSEPH
  • SURESH CHAND C.
  • SURESH KUMAR N.
  • SURESH T.R.
  • SUSAN JACOB P.
  • USH A E.K.
  • USHA VARGHESE
  • VENUGOPAL G.
  • VIJAYA RAJ S.T.
  • VINODU KUMAR K.N.
  • AJITHKUMAR N.K.
  • SEN K.S.

Respondents

  • KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
  • THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HRM, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED
  • STATE OF KERALA
  • ALOUSHY PAUL C
  • ANANDAKUMAR
  • GEETHA R.
  • GIRIJA B.
  • HARIDAS PANIKKAR
  • JALAJA T.
  • K.C. THOMAS
  • LUSAMMA JOSE
  • PRATHAPACHANDRAN R.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Vinay Kumar Varma

Counsels for Respondents

  • • GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a writ appeal filed by a large group of petitioners challenging the Kerala State Electricity Board’s policy restricting commutation of pension at the revised rate to employees who retired on or after 1 April 2021, despite a pay revision effective from 1 July 2018. The petitioners, who retired between 2018 and 2021, had already received arrears of pay and pension revision. Ext. P2 sanctioned the revised pay, and pension revision followed, but Ext. P3 fixed a cut-off date for commutation. The petitioners contend discrimination and rely on Appendix X of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) to argue for retrospective entitlement to commutation at the revised rate. The respondents counter that commutation is a prerogative policy decision of the employer, and administrative acts in this sphere are not ordinarily amenable to writ intervention, especially in the absence of glaring discrimination. The learned single Judge had relied on a 2017 decision (W.P.(C) No. 4315 of 2017) and on Kerala State Electricity Board v. Raghukumar (2012 (1) KLT 199) to justify the policy choice. The High Court agrees that policy decisions of this nature are discretionary and withstand scrutiny in writ jurisdiction unless there is blatant discrimination, and ultimately dismisses the writ appeal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Appendix X, Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that there is no bar in Appendix X, Part III of the Kerala Service Rules preventing retrospective commutation at the revised rate. Since pay revision was effected from 01.07.2018, they argue for commutation from that date, challenging the cut-off date fixed by Ext.P3 as discriminatory against those who retired before 01.04.2021. They rely on the policy framework and seek extension of the revised rate to all eligible retirees, asserting equal treatment and challenging the prospective nature of the restriction.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the pay revision and pension arrears were granted to petitioners, but the commutation facility was restricted as a prudent policy decision by the employer. They contend that commutation is an advance payment against future pension, and withholding it from earlier retirees is a permissible administrative act subject to discretionary policy considerations. They cite a 2017 decision (W.P.(C) No.4315 of 2017) and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Raghukumar (2012 (1) KLT 199) to justify deference to executive policy and to the notion that administrative actions are not ordinarily liable to writ court interference absent gross discrimination.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Kerala State Electricity Board v. Raghukumar2012 (1) KLT 199PositiveThe court relies on this decision to justify deference to the employer’s policy decisions affecting pension-related benefits and to support non-interference in administrative decisions.
W.P.(C) No.4315 of 2017(2018)PositiveThe single judge relied on this decision to validate the approach that pay revision can be retrospective while commutation can be made prospective, treating it as not illegal.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against W.A. No. 353 of 2023 (Kerala High Court) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** # **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI`** ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 25TH MAGHA, 1944 ``` ``` W.A. NO.353OF 2023 ``` ``` OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA) ``` ``` ------ APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 12, 513, 1516, 1819, 2225, 2843 & ``` ``` - 4576: ``` ``` 1 SATHEESH KUMAR K.M., AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.M.K.MADHAVAN, SAUPARNIKA, MAALAM(P.O), KOTTAYAM ., PIN – 686 019 ``` ``` 2 ABDUL RAHIMAN A., AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KARIM M.A., MYMANATH HOUSE, THANNISSERY (PO), PALAKKAD DT., PIN – 678 501 ``` ``` 3 ANGY ALEX, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KARIM M.A., FLAT G - E, SANIYA APARTMENTS, KAIRALI STREET, ASHOKA ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN, PIN - 682017 ``` ``` 4 ANNAMMA P. AGED 57 YEARS KANIYADAN HOUSE, PMC 21/617, VIP COLONY, COURT ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - ``` W.A.353/2023 2 ``` 683542 ``` - `5 BABU MOHAN P.P., AGED 58 YEARS, PARWATHI NIVAS, CHANNANIKADU(PO), KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686533` - `6 BEENA GOPINATH S., AGED 56 YEARS, GAYATHRI, NEAR AMRITHA VIDYALAYAM, TKM COLLEGE (PO), KOLLAM, PIN - 691005` ``` 7 BEENA PIOUS, AGED 57 YEARS, ABADALE, DMRA NO.2, KAIKULANGARA(W), CUTCHERY(PO), KOLLAM, PIN - 691013 ``` ``` 8 BETTY.T.MATHEW, AGED 57 YEARS, PANACHINANICKEL, PALA (PO), PIN – 686 575 ``` ``` 9 BIJU.T.KURIAN, AGED 57 YEARS, THADAMURIYIL, LAKKATTOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686502 ``` ``` 10 BINU MAREEN.A.JOHN, AGED 57 YEARS, THUMPEPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANAYATHI KAVALA, SREEKANDAMANGALAM P.O,, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM – 686 562 ``` ``` 11 ELIZABETH KURIAN, VAHANATTU, AGED 55 YEARS KONNAYIL HOUSE, ``` W.A.353/2023 3 ``` PANAYAKAZHIPPU, NAGAMPADOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 001 ``` ``` 12 GEETHA M., AGED 58 YEARS, NANMA, T.C.40/1073(10), CLRA 47A, SREEVARAHAM, MANACAUD. P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 009 ``` ``` 13 GIGY ELZY JOHN, AGED 58 YEARS, T.C.4/227, KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695 003 ``` ``` 14 GIRIJA R., AGED 57 YEARS, VAIKUNDAM, VATTIYOORKAVU.P.O., MVRA 11, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 013 ``` ``` 15 GIRISH M., AGED 58 YEARS, PERUKUNNATH, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH (PO), ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690 506 ``` ``` 16 JOHNY.M.P., AGED 58 YEARS, MOOTHEDAN HOUSE, V R PURAM P.O., CHALAKUDY, PIN – 680 722 ``` ``` 17 JOMINI THOMAS, AGED 57 YEARS, PAYYAMPALLIL HOUSE, SOUTH PAMPADY. P.O., ``` W.A.353/2023 4 ``` KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 521 ``` ``` 18 JOY P.V., AGED 58 YEARS, SHARON HOUSE, MIDAYIKUNNU POST, THALAYOLAPARAMPU, KOTTAYAM – 686 605 ``` ``` 19 JUBIN JOHN, AGED 57 YEARS, NEDUMCHIRA, 119/2 -J.P.NAGAR, R.S. (P.O), THIRUVALLA – 689 111 ``` ``` 20 MADHAVAN.K., AGED 57 YEARS, KARTHIKA', OLASSERY PO, KODUMBU, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 551 ``` ``` 21 MANIKANDHAN K., AGED 57 YEARS, JYOTHIS, KADAKURUSSI, THIRUNELLAI ROAD, KANNADI POST, PALAKKAD – 678 701 ``` ``` 22 MANJULA BHANU VIKRAMAN AGED 57 YEARS, SWARAGANGA, EDACHERRY, ROAD, PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR, PIN – 670 004 ``` ``` 23 MEENA S., AGED 58 YEARS, KRA 26, KRISHNA KANIYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688 003 ``` - `24 MEHARUNNISA M, AGED 57 YEARS,` W.A.353/2023 5 ``` TC12/1069-1, SRA10 A, LAW COLLEGE ROAD, VANCHIYUR(PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 035 ``` ``` 25 MINI P.NAYAR, AGED 58 YEARS, TC 27/1229, INDEEVARAM, PATTOOR ROAD, VANCHIYOOR.PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 035 ``` ``` 26 MOHAMMED E., AGED 58 YEARS, VILAYILVEEDU, KALLOOR, MANJAMALA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 313 ``` ``` 27 MOLLYKUTTY ANDREWS, AGED 57 YEARS, VADAKKEMANDAPATHIL, AIMCOMBU 6[TH] MILE, KADANAD.P. O, KOTTAYAM DT., PIN – 686 653 ``` ``` 28 NISHA P.P., AGED 57 YEARS, HARITHAM, CHETTUPUZHA(PO), PIN – 680 012 ``` ``` 29 P.A. SADARUDHEEN, AGED 57 YEARS, 26/697, PATTANI STREET, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 014 ``` ``` 30 PAUL GEORGE, AGED 57 YEARS, MATTAPPALLIL, MIDAYIKUNNU P.O., KOTTAYAM – 686 605 ``` W.A.353/2023 6 ``` 31 PAULY K.P., AGED 56 YEARS, KARIMALIKKAL HOUSE, MULLAKKARA, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 651 ``` ``` 32 PRABHA P.A., AGED 57 YEARS, MANJUTHARA, PERUMBALLOOR.P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 686 673 ``` ``` 33 PRADEEP K.VARMA, AGED 57 YEARS, TRIVENY, MADATHIL KOVILAKAM, CMC-11, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688 524 ``` ``` 34 PRADEEP KUMAR N.K., AGED 57 YEARS, ANANDABHAVAN, SOUTH GATE, VAIKOM(PO), PIN – 686 141 ``` ``` 35 PRASANNAKUMARI A., AGED 58 YEARS, AMBADY, VELLANJILIPARAMB, KOMANA, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 561 ``` ``` 36 P.T.SEENATH BEEVI, AGED 57 YEARS, KRIPA, MADANCOVIL LANE, PARUTHIPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 025 ``` - `37 P.V. JYOTHI, AGED 59 YEARS,` W.A.353/2023 7 ``` NANDANA, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM – 686 004 ``` ``` 38 RADHIKA NAIR, AGED 56 YEARS, VENNAKARA EAST, NURANI POST, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 004 ``` ``` 39 RAHAMMATHULLAH A., AGED 57 YEARS, KAK HOUSE, PUDUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD – 678 731 ``` ``` 40 REEMA D., AGED 57 YEARS, PUTHIYAKKAL HOUSE, KAREEPRA, KUZHIMATHICADU (P.O), KUNDARA - 691 509 ``` ``` 41 R. RAJASHREE, AGED 57 YEARS, SARANG, HOUSE NO1116A, INDIRA ROAD, EDAPPALLY - 682 024 ``` ``` 42 REMY GEORGE, AGED 57 YEARS, VEZHUMPACHERIL HOUSE, H.NO.290/38D, VC ANTONY ROAD, THRIKKAKARA PO, ERNAKULAM DT, PIN – 682 021 ``` ``` 43 ROSHNI MARIAM THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS, PUTHUSSERIL, CHURCH ROAD, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688 011 ``` W.A.353/2023 8 ``` 44 SAJAN K.K., AGED 57 YEARS, MIDHUNAM, PONKUNNAM (PO), KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 506 ``` ``` 45 SAJEEV.K., AGED 57 YEARS, SOUPARNIKA, ADOOPARAMBU, MUVATTUPUZHA.P.O.,ERNA KULAM DIST – 686 661 ``` ``` 46 SAJI P.R., AGED 57 YEARS, PARAPPALLIL, KOORALI PO, KOTTAYAM – 686 522 ``` ``` 47 SANTHA C.J., AGED 57 YEARS, VINAYAKA, VAIKOM – 686 141 ``` ``` 48 SERJI CHERIAN, AGED 58 YEARS, ALUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, VEROOR PO, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN – 686 104 ``` ``` 49 SHAJAN V.N., AGED 57 YEARS, EDATHALAPARAMBIL (H), MAMALA PO, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 305 ``` ``` 50 SHAJI S.KOTTARAM, AGED 57 YEARS, NEELOOR P O, PALA, PIN – 686 651 ``` ``` 51 SHEEBA I., AGED 56 YEARS, ``` W.A.353/2023 9 ``` OTTATHENGIL, KALADY. P. O, ERNAKULAM – 683 574 ``` ``` 52 SOOSAMMA JACOB, AGED 57 YEARS, PALLATHUPARAMBIL, KOLLADU P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 004 ``` ``` 53 SOSAMMA KURUVILA, AGED 56 YEARS, PERIYALATHU HOUSE, KAVUNGUMPRAYAR P.O, PURAMATTOM, THIRUVALLA – 689 543 ``` ``` 54 SREELETHA S., AGED 56 YEARS, LOTUS PADMAHARA, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA MADOM, STATUE JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM – 682 301 ``` ``` 55 SUJATHA R.S, AGED 57 YEARS, TC 55/1589, KSRA D4, KULATHARA KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 002 ``` ``` 56 SUNNY JOSEPH, AGED 58 YEARS, CHERUSSERIL HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST., PIN – 686 542 ``` ``` 57 SURESH CHAND C., AGED 58 YEARS, AZHAKATHU, OPP. MUNSIFF COURT, PONKUNNAM – 686 506 ``` W.A.353/2023 10 ``` 58 SURESH KUMAR N., AGED 56 YEARS, MADHAVA MANDIRAM, S L PURAM.P.O, ALAPPUZHA - 688 523 ``` ``` 59 SURESH T.R., AGED 56 YEARS, THUMBRATHUKUDY HOUSE, SOUTH OF OKAY HOSPITAL, LOKAMALLESWARAM, KODUNGALLUR – 680 664 ``` ``` 60 SUSAN JACOB P., AGED 58 YEARS, HOUSE NO.17, THEKKILAKKATTU HOUSE, SHANTHI NAGAR, NEAR KUROOR BRIDGE, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691 ``` ``` 61 USHA E.K., AGED 57 YEARS, XVI-246, USHUS, AZAD ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683 101 ``` ``` 62 USHA VARGHESE, AGED 57 YEARS, NELLIMOOTTIL HOUSE, MUNDIAPPALLY (PO), KUNNAMTHANAM, THIRUVALLA – 689 581 ``` ``` 63 VENUGOPAL G., AGED 57 YEARS, SAKETHAM, VIKASNAGAR, MUVATTUPUZHA(PO), PIN – 686 661 ``` ``` 64 VIJAYA RAJ S.T., AGED 57 YEARS, TC 44/1641, BETH- HARAN, JWRA- 80, KOCHAR ROAD, JAGATHY, ``` W.A.353/2023 11 ``` THYCAUD - 695 014 ``` ``` 65 VINODU KUMAR K.N., AGED 56 YEARS, VIRAD, VENDUVAZHI, NORTH KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN – 686 691 ``` ``` 66 AJITHKUMAR N.K., AGED 57 YEARS, NJAYAPPALLIL, THRIKOTHAMANGALAM P.O. KOTTAYAM – 686 011 67 SEN K.S., AGED 59 YEARS, KANNARKKATT, MUHAMMA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA – 688 525 BY ADV VINAY KUMAR VARMA ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & PETITIONERS 3, 4, 14, 17, 20-21, 26-`** ## **`27 & 44:`** ``` 1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 004 2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HRM, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 004 3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001 4 ALOUSHY PAUL C, AGED 57 YEARS, CHERADIYAL HOUSE, NO.662/IX, NEAR GIRIJYOTHI COLLEGE, THANNIKANDOM, IDUKKI COLONY (PO), PIN – 685 602 ``` W.A.353/2023 12 - `5 ANANDAKUMAR, THAIVEETTIL, POWERHOUSE ROAD, MOOLAMATTOM P.O, ELAPPALLY, PIN – 685 589.` - `6 GEETHA R., AGED 56 YEARS, HOUSE NO.32/1329 - B, PARC - 108, VATTATHIPPADAM ROAD, PALARIVATTOM(PO), KOCHI, PIN – 682 025.` - `7 GIRIJA B., AGED 59 YEARS, SARASWATHY MANDIRAM, KAPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY(PO), ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683 585` - `8 HARIDAS PANIKKAR, AGED 57 YEARS, GAYATHRI, VENKATESPURAM COLONY, BLOCK F 28, PUTHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001.` - `9 JALAJA T., AGED 58 YEARS, CHAITHRAM, PALLIYARA, MULAVANA, KUNDARA, KOLLAM-691 501 (SINCE DECEASED).` - `10 K.C. THOMAS, AGED 57 YEARS, THORANAMVACHATHIL, KANAKKARI P O, KOTTAYAM – 686 631.` - `11 LUSAMMA JOSE, AGED 56 YEARS, MANANTHIL HOUSE, CHEMMANATHUKARA.P.O, VAIKOM – 686 606.` - `12 PRATHAPACHANDRAN R., AGED 58 YEARS, KAUSTHUBHAM, PERUMPANACHY(PO), CHANGANACHERRY, PIN – 686 536` ## `GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN` ``` THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.A.353/2023 13 ## JUDGMENT _(Dated: 14[th] February, 2023)_ ## Basant Balaji, J. The appellants 1, 2, 5 to 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22 to 25, 28 to 43 and 45 to 76 are the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.1265 of 2022. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners for a writ of certiorari for quashing Ext.P3 to the extent it specifies a cut-off date for claiming commutation of pension at the revised rate of pay and allowances as sanctioned by Ext.P2. 2. The petitioners retired from the service of the 1[st] respondent between 01.07.2018 and 01.04.2021. The pay revision was effected for the officers and the workmen of the Board with effect from 01.07.2018. Thereafter pension was also revised in tune with the pay revision order. However, the commutation of pension at the revised rate was restricted to officers who retired on or after 1.4.2021 alone. This was W.A.353/2023 14 challenged in the writ petition alleging discrimination and against the dictum laid down by the Apex Court. 3. The contention raised was that, as per Appendix X of part III of the KSR, there is no bar for grant of arrears of commutation at revised rate of pension with retrospective effect. Therefore, when the pay revision is effected from 01.07.2018 onwards, the petitioner should also be allowed to commute the pension from that date. 4. The respondents contended before the learned single Judge that the petitioners’ have been granted all the benefits of pay and pension revision orders with effect from 01.07.2018. But the entitlement to commute pension was restricted and applicable only prospectively from 01.04.2021 onwards. It was also contended that the learned single Judge relied on a judgment dated 07.02.2018 in W.P.(C)No.4315 of 2017, in which it was specifically stated that there is nothing illegal in granting pay revision from a particular date and commutation prospectively for another date. _See Kerala State_ W.A.353/2023 15 ## _Electricity Board v. Raghukumar [2012 (1) KLT 199]_ . The learned single Judge also found that as per the pay revision, the petitioners have been given the arrears of pay as well as pension and that the decision with regard to acceptance of the proposal for revision of pay and pension is an administrative act which the employer is at liberty to do. Interference in an administrative decision can only be for compelling reasons that are too glaring instances of discrimination. 5. The fixing of pay revision from a retrospective date as well as fixing a date for commutation from another date is purely a prerogative policy decision taken by the employer keeping in perspective several circumstances. Unless the petitioners’ are able to point out that there are glaring instances of discrimination, a writ court shall not ordinarily examine or interfere in the policy decisions. Commutation is getting a part of the pension in advance and thereafter reducing the pension to that portion monthly. When commutation is not granted, the employee will get the full pension. Therefore, the benefit which W.A.353/2023 16 is denied is only advance payment of the pension through commutation. This is regulated by the employer by the clearly spelt out policy decision. We have gone through the pleadings as well as the documents in the writ petition and the judgment of the learned single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the writ petition as no grounds were made out to interfere with the decision of the State. The writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. _Sd/-_ S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE _Sd/-_ BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE ss