W.P.(C.) No.37932 of 2022 This writ petition arises from the Kerala State Co-operative Bank employees seeking enhanced gratuity on retirement. Fifteen petitioners, who served for decades and retired, claim they were paid only Rs. 20 lakhs as gratuity, whereas their service agreements entitle one month’s pay for each year of service, implying a higher gratuity. They contend that better terms exist under an arrangement with the employer and invoke Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which allows better terms under any award, contract, or agreement and prevails over the second proviso to Rule 59(iii) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. The respondents respond that gratuity is governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, with amendments capping gratuity at 20 lakhs, and that Ext.P1 Regulations function as an instrument having force of law but there is no distinct contract for enhanced terms. The court notes earlier Division Bench decisions in favor of employees (including WP(C) Nos. 1023/2019, WA 524/2018, and WP(C) 27507/2013) and aligns with Chandrasekharan Nair (supra); it distinguishes BCH Electric Limited v. Pradeep Mehra as inapplicable on the facts. The judgment holds that better terms can be earned under Ext.P1 in light of Section 4(5) and directs the bank to disburse the balance eligible gratuity within three months from certified copy of the judgment, thus allowing the petition.
C.E.Appeal No. 10 of 2013 This Central Excise Appeal concerns ITEL Industries Ltd, a public limited company manufacturing telephone instruments and trading Modular Terminal Rosset (MTR), seeking exemption from duty on MTR on the ground that it is an accessory and not an essential component. For the 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000 period, duty was paid under protest, after the Tribunal previously allowed the appellant’s challenge to the duty liability. The Department opposed the claim, maintaining duty was payable. Refund applications for duty paid under protest were initially allowed by the first appellate authority but rejected by the Tribunal, which held the refund claim barred by the period of limitation under Section 11B. The appellant argued that the second proviso to Section 11B(1) exempts such refunds from the one-year limitation if duty and interest are paid under protest, a view reinforced by Karnataka’s KVR Construction and Electro Steel Castings Ltd. The Department relied on Dena Snuff (P) Ltd., which cautions that limitation applies absent the proviso. The Kerala High Court, noting the proviso’s effective date (20.09.1991) and that the payment was after that date and under protest, held that the second proviso applies, reversing the Tribunal. The Court thus allowed the appeal and directed refund of the protested duty, upholding the first appellate authority’s refund order.
The petitioner, Sebastian Thomas, joined the first respondent bank in 1981 as a Junior Clerk and retired in 2017 as Secretary with a last drawn salary of Rs. 1,06,070. He approached the High Court seeking a mandamus to disburse Rs. 11,45,877 along with 9% interest from 12.06.2017 and a declaration that he is entitled to receive the balance of gratuity. The core issue is whether employees of cooperative societies governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act are entitled to better terms under Section 4(5) of the Act when the employer is covered by the Central Act and the state law. The court cites the Full Bench decision in Chandrasekharan Nair G. v. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (2017) (4) KLT 276, which holds that liability to pay gratuity does not shift to the insurer; instead, the maturity value of the master policy goes to the employee’s credit, and any deficit must be borne by the employer under Section 4(2). Section 4(5) allows the employee to secure better terms. The Central Act overrides inconsistent state law (Article 254(2) and Section 14), and Rule 59(iii)’s second proviso is interpreted in the broader context of Section 4(5). The judgment also quashes Circular No.5/2016 as misconceived. Consequently, the petitions are disposed with directions to pay any excess amount, if any, received under the policy, within a specified time, with 9% interest, and no costs.
Joy, S/o. Sebastian, the appellant, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-I, Kollam, under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for possessing six litres of arrack in a 10‑litre jerrycan. He challenged the conviction and sentence by filing this criminal appeal. The prosecution case rests on PW4, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who, on patrol on 3.7.1998, arrested him near Koduvila after allegedly finding a 10‑litre jerrycan containing six litres of arrack and seized a 350 ml sample (Ext.P1). The material seizure list (Ext.P2) and properties (Ext.P3) were produced, with the trial court noting evidence from PW3 and PW4 in support, while PW1 and PW2 were hostile to the prosecution. A central dispute is the non‑production of an arrest memo (or arrest card) at trial, despite claims that an arrest memo was prepared. The High Court stressed that non‑production and lack of contemporaneous arrest documentation, as enjoined by D.K.Basu and subsequent Kerala precedents (Ramankutty; Ravi), undermined the genuineness of arrest and the entire prosecution case. Additionally, unexplained delays in producing the seized contraband before the court and inconsistencies in Ext.P3 on quantity further tainted the case. The court ultimately held that the evidence failed to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, with bail bonds cancelled.
This is a criminal appeal (CRL.A. No. 1356 of 2004) from a judgment dated 16-07-2004 of the Addl. Sessions Court (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta, convicting the appellant under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act for possession of 3 litres of arrack. The High Court appointed Amicus Curiae because of lack of representation for the appellant. The prosecution relied on seizure, sampling and chemical analysis (Exts. P1–P8, MO1, and Ext. P5–P6) to connect the contraband with the appellant. The Amicus argued that there was no evidence regarding who drew the sample, when and where the sample was drawn, and no forwarding note or specimen seal impression, undermining the chain of custody. The court discussed principles from Sasidharan v. State of Kerala (2007) and Prakasan v. State of Kerala (2016) stressing the necessity of link evidence and proper sealing/forwarding documentation; also referencing Ravi v. State of Kerala (2011) and Krishnan H. v. State (2015) on delays in investigation affecting the prosecution’s case. Ultimately, the High Court found the prosecution failed to establish a tamper-proof chain of custody and the sampling linkage beyond reasonable doubt, and allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant and cancelling bail.
CON.CASE(C)NO.2322 OF 2019 This Contempt of Court case (C.C. No.2322 of 2019) arises from a contempt petition filed by petitioners 1 to 19 challenging alleged willful disobedience of directions contained in Annexure A1 of the High Court of Kerala’s judgment dated 12.10.2018 in WP(C) No.33553/2016 and connected matters. The petitioners, who are employees of the Meenachal East Urban Cooperative Bank, sought enforcement of the High Court’s directions and, effectively, disbursement of higher pension under the EPF pension scheme. The Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment in Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. (AIR 2022 SC 5634) held the G.S.R. 609(E) notification (2014) legal and valid and read down certain pension-scheme provisions. It directed adjustments and extensions (including option under para 11(4)) and laid down that those who did not exercise options before a cut-off were to be given a further chance, within a period. The Kerala High Court, recognizing the Apex Court’s 2022 ruling, held that petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by the EPFO. The court closed the contempt petition, while preserving EPFO’s right to reconsider entitlement under the 2022 judgment.
This is a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C.No.6586 of 2014) decided by the Kerala High Court, sitting in Ernakulam, on 18 December 2017. Accused Nos. 1–4 were charged in CP No.30 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla, arising from Pulikeezhu Police Station Crime No.570/2011, with offences under sections 306 read with 34 IPC (abetment of suicide). The victim, a first-year nursing student, died after immolating herself following alleged harassment by the petitioners in a nursing college and hostel setting. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the dying declaration and statements of CWs, with the initial registration under 309 IPC later altered to 306 IPC. The High Court, after examining the prosecution evidence and relevant jurisprudence, concluded that there was no clear mens rea or direct act by the petitioners to instigate the suicide; the materials were feeble and did not establish abetment. It relied on authoritative Supreme Court decisions (Ramesh Kumar, Madan Mohan Singh, M. Mohan, Praveen Pradhan, Sindhu Paul) and on State of Kerala v. Unnikrishnan Nair to emphasize that mere harassment or suspicious circumstances are insufficient to sustain a conviction under 306 IPC. Consequently, the court allowed the Crl.M.C. and quashed all further proceedings against the petitioners under section 482 Cr.P.C.
CRL.M.C No. 6042 of 2022; Crl.M.C No. 5901 of 2023 & 6042/2022 The Kerala High Court, before Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, heard two criminal miscellaneous petitions (Crl.M.C Nos. 6042 of 2022 and 5901 of 2023 & 6042/2022) challenging the cognizance taken in CC No. 417/2021 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha, wherein the accused (Ashok Kumaran @ Sabu C and D. Harikumar in the first petition; Ravindran Pillai @ Dr Ravi Pillai as petitioner in the second) faced offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC. The respondents include the State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, and Seby Antony, a de facto complainant. The court examined whether the cognizance and summons were properly issued given that the alleged misconduct involved foreign contracts and a Kuwait-based company; whether there is personal liability of directors for acts of a foreign company; and whether Section 4 IPC or Section 188 CrPC sanctions apply. Relying on Pepsi Foods, Maksud Saiyed, Sunil Bharti Mittal, Iridium, Parameswaran Nair, GHCL, and other precedents, the judge held that the materials do not establish personal liability of the accused and that the Magistrate failed to apply proper mind. The court ultimately allowed the petitions, set aside the cognizance and the process, and dismissed the complaint, closing the applications.
This is a bail application (anticipatory bail) filed in the Kerala High Court by two practising lawyers, M J Johnson and Philip K K, in connection with Crime No. 1189/2023 of the Thalassery Police Station, Kannur District, alleging offences under IPC sections 376, 354, and 120B read with 34, and related provisions under the Cr.P.C. and the Advocates Act. The de facto complainant/victim alleged that after approaching the first petitioner for help in filing for divorce, the first petitioner sexually abused her at a hotel in Kozhikode after spiking a drink, with repeated acts in Tellicherry and Kozhikode, and that nude pictures/videos were recorded. The petitioners contend that they are respected practitioners and that the complainant’s grievances stem from inadequate compensation in divorce proceedings; they claim the relationship was consensual and that allegations of coercion are unfounded. They also argued that Rs. 3,00,000 was paid as settlement, though the complainant later filed additional complaints; they raised doubts about annexures’ handwriting and questioned the likelihood of coercion. The State and complainant opposed anticipatory bail, citing the gravity of offences and possible influence on witnesses. After detailed consideration, the judge held that anticipatory bail could be granted with conditions, noting the need for a fair, free investigation and the presumption of innocence, and directed that the investigation be conducted by a specified IPS officer to ensure impartiality.
This writ petition challenges two revenue recovery notices (Exhibits P2 and P2(a)) issued under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, directed at the petitioner who had been an indigent in an earlier appeal (LAA No.629 of 2011) that was withdrawn and dismissed as not pressed by a Division Bench in Exhibit P1 (dated 8-2-2013). The petitioner contends that, following a State amendment to Order XXXIII Rule 11 of the CPC (replacing “shall” with “may”), the court has discretion to direct payment of court fees or exempt indigent appellants, and since there was no order directing payment in the present case, recovery is bad. The petitioner relies on Joseph v. Kerala State Electricity Board (DB) (2012) and Andrew v. State of Kerala to argue for limited or no court-fee liability. The respondents counter that the amendment is not sustainable in law, and that the Revenue Recovery notices are valid under existing rules, with discretion to compel payment governed by Rule 12 and related provisions. The court ultimately holds that the amendment is a matter of discretion, and in light of Full Bench rulings (Sivaraman v. Suresh), directs that recovery proceedings be kept in abeyance until the court issues necessary orders under Rule 12 CPC. The petition is partly allowed.
This is an arbitration appeal filed in the High Court of Kerala challenging an award passed by an Arbitrator in favor of contractor K. Ramesh Babu arising from a contract for supply of RCC plain slabs to BSNL. Under tender dated 12.1.2007 and agreement dated 30.9.2007, the respondent contractor agreed to supply 50,000 slabs but delivered only 1,818 slabs, causing financial loss to BSNL. The tender clauses 6.41 and 6.65 permitted termination for breach and forfeiture of the entire EMD and security deposit; on termination, BSNL forfeited the EMD/SD and barred the respondent from future tenders for six months. The respondent challenged and an Arbitrator awarded: (i) BSNL shall retain Rs.50,000 from the security deposit to compensate losses, (ii) BSNL shall refund the balance Rs.56,600 and release the performance bank guarantee within 45 days. BSNL and its Divisional Engineer filed Arbitration O.P. under Section 34, which the District Court dismissed. The petitioners appeal, arguing that the award did not account for losses of Rs.2,28,960 due to post-termination slab purchases and that the forfeiture was improperly limited. The Kerala High Court, after reviewing the record, held that the award falls within the permissible scope of Section 34 review and relied on established jurisprudence (Associate Builders, Renusagar lineage, ONGC, etc.) to uphold the award and dismiss the appeal, reiterating deference to arbitral findings."
This writ petition challenges patta cancellations and seeks mandamus relief to ensure proper verification of land records spanning cross-district land parcels in Erumely South Village and Kollamula/Pathanamthitta regions. Petitioners obtained patta for 23 cents in Re-Survey No.5/7-2 (Erumely South) and allege that 50 cents land adjacent to their holdings, originally intended for a police outpost, has been auctioned by the Pathanamthitta police while remaining land lies contiguously with theirs. The petition contends that the patta cancellation orders (Exts. P7, P9, P11) were issued without adherence to the first proviso of Rule 8(3) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, which requires reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard before cancellation. The petition relies on the principle of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, and cites Biecco Lawrie Limited v. State of West Bengal to emphasize the need for clear, precise notice and a fair hearing. The court scrutinizes Ext. P12 notice and finds deficiencies in the notice and the order of the Land Revenue Commissioner (Ext. P11) as lacking a speaking order. Consequently, the court allows the petition, sets aside Ext. P11, and directs the first respondent to reconsider Ext. P10 after affording hearing to petitioners and other affected parties, within four months, while keeping all contentions open.
Assia K.K., the owner of 5.972 acres in Survey No. 42/2-2, Vadakkankara Village, Perinthalmanna Taluk, Malappuram, challenged an order under Form 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 to delete her land from the data bank. She contended the property is garden land converted years ago and wrongly recorded as paddy land (nilam), and sought deletion after correcting records and obtaining site data. The petition traces a sequence of directives: after initial reluctance by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), the court directed in 2019 (W.P.(C) No.33312/2019) that KSREC be engaged, site inspections conducted, and a fresh recommendation obtained; later, in 2020 (W.P.(C) No.28437/2020), the RDO was directed to decide after further site inspection and necessary reports. On 02.08.2023, the impugned order refused deletion from the data bank. The petitioner argued the KSREC report was not properly invoked, that the finding of paddy cultivation on three sides is contradicted by photographs, and that future cultivation is unlikely given surrounding development. The respondents counter that KSREC data was verified, site inspections were conducted, and that judicial review under Article 226 is limited to the decision-making process, not merits. The court relied on authorities including Arthasasthra Ventures, Muraleedharan Nair, Aparna Sasi Menon, and Mukesh Kumar Raigar to emphasize limits of interference and uphold the decision. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Ext.P12 order dated 02.08.2023, and refused to substitute its view for the statutory authority’s."
The petitioner, Santhi G. Jaidev, a Senior Commandant in CISF, challenged the denial of promotion to Deputy Inspector General (DIG) for the 2011-12 cycle. She joined service in 1990 and rose to Senior Commandant by 2007. After becoming eligible for promotion to DIG in 2010, she faced show-cause proceedings in 2010, a memo of charges, and a domestic enquiry. A prior writ (W.P.(C) No. 3031 of 2012) resulted in Ext.P1 judgment (02.04.2012) quashing the preliminary enquiry for violating Chapter III of the Vigilance Manual and DoPT/ Government guidelines; a fresh action could be initiated if warranted. By then the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) had already met on 23.12.2011 and 13.03.2012, promoting juniors by sealed-cover or on seniority lists; the petitioner’s name stood at serial No.18 in Ext.P2, and she claimed downgrading in ACR/APAR (2008-09 and 2009-10) and suppression of material facts, which adversely affected her prospects. The respondents contended that the ACR/APAR were based on objective assessments and that the DG’s decisions were final. The High Court held that Ext.P11’s ACR downgrade violated DoPT OM Ext.P21 and that such representation must be considered by a higher authority, following Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India. The judgment quashed Ext.P11 (to the extent of downgrade), quashed Exts.P13 and P17, and directed reconsideration of Ext.P16, convening a Review DPC for 2011-12, and finalization of orders within six weeks, with promotion if fit and retrospective benefits. It disposed of the petition accordingly, including directives to complete disciplinary proceedings within two months.
This is a Kerala High Court writ petition (WP(C) 27058/2005) by Sulekha G., a senior Higher Secondary School Teacher (Malayalam) at Thakazhi Devaswom Board Higher Secondary School, challenging the placement of Principals in TDDB-managed HSSs. Ext.P6 records the selection of respondents 3 and 4 as Principals, despite petitioner’s seniority and qualifications, and she seeks quashing of Ext.P6, a declaration that the placement is illegal, and mandamus to constitute a fair selection process and consider her representations. The petitioner relies on Rule 6, Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) and GO (MS) 43/2005 (11.02.2005) which clarified seniority by total approved teaching experience in Higher Secondary and High School levels. Ext.P4 (29.04.2005) invited applications for Principal postings, with respondents 3 and 4 selected on 06.06.2005 (Ext.P6). The petitioner contends incapacity of the selection process due to lack of reasons for rejection and argues that seniormost teacher should be placed as Principal under the Special Rules. The respondents contend that Principal posts are “selection posts” under GO 09.11.2001 and that the selection committee’s decision is final and binding; Ext.P7 circular does not require only the seniormost; the rules require merit, experience, and suitability. The court examines the statutory framework, case-law (Vijayamoney, Valsala Kumari Devi, Ashok Kumar) and concludes that the post is a selection post and that the selection committee’s recommendations are final. Ultimately, the writ petition is dismissed for lack of merit, upholding the validity of Ext.P6 and the rules governing appointment.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition (CRL.MC No. 4292 of 2023) under Section 482 CrPC filed by accused Nos. 1 to 10 challenging the order in C.C. No. 288 of 2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur. The petition arises from alleged offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) read with Section 149 IPC committed on 14.12.2020 in the context of political enmity, resulting in injuries to respondents 2 to 5. The petition asserts that the parties have amicably settled all disputes, supported by affidavits (Annexures A3–A6) from the injured respondents, and seeks quashing of criminal proceedings to restore peace. The Public Prosecutor initially expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but concedes there are no other transgressions against the petitioners. The Court surveys precedent, citing State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and other decisions to delineate the scope and limits of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, particularly in private, non-compoundable cases where the disputes have been settled. After weighing the gravity of the offences, the nature of injuries, antecedents, and the live settlement, the Court concludes that quashing would further the ends of justice and bring peace. The petition is allowed, quashing the Final Report (Crime No.632/2020) and all further proceedings in CC No. 288/2021.
CRL.A.No. 1653 of 2004 (A) Kanakunhappan was tried for an offence under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act after excise officers, acting on a tip-off, found him stirring a 30‑litre aluminium vessel containing about 25 litres of wash at a cemetery in Payyannur on 19 September 1997. The police seized the contraband wash, took samples, and prepared Ext.P1 seizure mahazar on the spot; the rest of the wash was destroyed. PW1 (Excise Inspector) testified to the seizure, sampling, sealing, and forwarding of the report, while PW2 and PW3 supported the detection and investigation. The trial court convicted and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. On appeal, counsel for the appellant attacked the conviction on multiple grounds, notably the unexplained delay in investigation, the belated production of Ext.P1, and the absence of a sight plan, arguing that the delay casts doubt on the integrity of the evidence and could indicate fabrication. The High Court examined the record and, noting settled law that search and seizure must be intimated to the court promptly under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C, held that the prosecution failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in reporting Ext.P1 and the final report, and that the belated production undermined the prosecution's case. The court, while recognizing the appellant’s advanced age, allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the conviction and directing release, with conditions regarding bail and return of deposits. All interlocutory applications were dismissed.
This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC challenges the decree of the Additional District Court, Ottapalam, arising from the Munsiff Court's OS 287/2014 and the subsequent AS 4/2018. The appellant, Baby, the defendant in the original suit, contends that the first appellate court dismissed the appeal for non-payment of balance court fee despite remittance on 28 November 2022 and despite a petition under Section 151 CPC for restoration. The plaintiff, Chandramathy, argues the appeal was properly dismissed for fault of non-payment, and accuses the defendant of lacking bonafides, seeking dismissal of the RSA. The High Court examines the procedural framework for striking off or rejecting an appeal; it notes that Orders VII and XLI do not directly cover non-payment of balance court fee, and that Section 107 CPC grants appellate courts broad powers. It cites Gopalan Nair v. Bhaskaran (2002 KHC 54) to emphasize that non-payment may lead to rejection of the memorandum of appeal as a decree under Section 2(2) CPC, and that the proper remedy is to reject under Order VII Rule 11(c) read with Section 107(2) CPC. The High Court finds the appellate court erred by not applying the correct procedure, and, since the balance fee was paid, directs remand for merits. It sets aside the decree, remits the matter to the appellate court with two months for disposal, and orders appearance on 05.01.2024; all interlocutory applications are dismissed.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC arises from CC No. 1081/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam, which emanates from Crime No. 619/2022 of Anchalummoode Police Station. The petitioners—ANI THOMASAGED, ABHIDARSHAGED, SAJANAGED, SYAMAGED, and DICKSONAGED—are accused in the said case for offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 34 IPC. The petition seeks to quash the ongoing prosecution on the ground that the parties have settled the dispute and the victim has submitted an affidavit indicating no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations but conceded that the matter is settled between the parties. The court cites the Supreme Court decisions in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688) and the earlier Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab decisions as the backdrop for using its inherent power under Section 482 when the offence is non-compoundable but private in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. The judge emphasizes that the offences here are private in character and do not impact public interest or involve serious or heinous elements, and considers the antecedents and conduct of the accused. Per these considerations, the court accepts the settlement and quashes all further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No. 1081/2023. The order reflects a balanced approach, consistent with Laxmi Narayan’s guidance.
WP(C). No.5752 OF 2019(T) G. Balagopalan, a retired Director of Police Finger Print Bureau, State Crime Records Bureau, petitions under Article 226 challenging G.O.(P) No.1/2019/GAD (31.01.2019), which permitted casual/eligible leaves to Government employees and teachers who did not attend duties on 8–9 January 2019 during a nationwide general strike against Central Government policies. The petitioner contends the order is illegal and unconstitutional, as it effectively funds participation in a general strike and diverts public funds (~Rs.180 crore), undermining federal balance and violating principles of equal treatment between organized and unorganized sectors. He points to earlier precedents and circulars (2013, 2009, 2005, 2011, 2012–2013, 2016) that treated strike days as dies non or restricted leave, and to Full Bench decisions Bharat Kumar and George Kurian to illustrate the court’s mandate against bandh-like disruptions. Respondents counter that Exhibit-P1 is a targeted administrative measure to permit leave for genuine cases when attendance could not be ensured due to transportation and other exigencies, and is not a blanket policy; it relies on Article 309, Kerala Public Services Act, 1968, and Kerala Service Rules to regulate service conditions. The High Court, in Division Bench, ultimately finds Exhibit-P1 illegal and arbitrary, quashing the order, directing scrutiny of attendance registers, and mandating action as per law within two months, with a compliance report to be filed.
