Judgment 1. Mr. Shivaji Pandey appears for the petitioner, and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Dutt for the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The petitioner is a retired employee of the respondent Board. He raises a grievance that the Board has recalled its decision allowing commutation of pension. It is stated in the writ petition that that commutation was allowed but the amount was not paid to him, although pension to that extent was deducted for a period of 12 months whereafter the Board returned his entire deducted amount of pension and has taken the stand that the commuted value of the pension shall not be paid. The petitioner shall instead be paid the full amount of pension every month. 2. Learned counsel for the Board submits that in view of the acute financial crisis which has gripped the respondent Board, it has taken the decision to suspend the provision relating to grant of benefit of the commuted pension which is being uniformly applied. He relies on the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 12.3.2004, passed on C.W.J.C. No. 1937 of 2004 (Kamla Prasad Singh vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.), wherein the Boards stand has been upheld. 3. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me that in view of the circumstances consequent upon bifurcation of the State of Bihar as well as the respondent Board, the latter is gripped with acute financial crisis to the extent that its very, existence is under threat. In such a situation, the Boards decision to suspend the provision relating to commutation of pension is a bona-fide decision and, in my opinion, a laudable attempt to tide over the crisis. Secondly, it is basically an executive decision with which the Court would be reluctant to interfere unless a case of arbitrariness or discriminatory approach is made out. No such case has been made out by the petitioner nor was made out by the petitioner of the said C.W.J.C. No. 1937 of 2004. Thirdly, in the scheme of post-retirement benefits, monthly pension is the primary benefit extended to the retired employees, and the benefit of commuted value of pension is an additional benefit at the option of the employee. In fact, many employees do not opt for commuted pension. Thirdly, in the scheme of post-retirement benefits, monthly pension is the primary benefit extended to the retired employees, and the benefit of commuted value of pension is an additional benefit at the option of the employee. In fact, many employees do not opt for commuted pension. The conclusion is obvious that commuted pension is not an integral part of the scheme of post-retirement benefits. In the present case, the petitioner admits that his pension is being paid regularly and the amount of pension deducted for 12 months has been promptly refunded to him. Fourthly, the Boards stand has been upheld by a learned Single Judge of this Court by the aforesaid order dated 12.3.2004, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1937 of 2004. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned action. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.