The petitioner, Sithara Beegam, challenges the cancellation of her appointment as High School Assistant Urdu (Part Time) at KC P Higher Secondary School, Kavassery, Palakkad, and seeks regularisation with effect from 15 July 2021 under GO(P) No. 4/2021. Appointed to a retirement vacancy, her post was approved by the District Educational Officer; Ext.P3 records the appointment and Ext.P8 shows cancellation on the ground of insufficient student strength. After WP(C) 6881/2021, Ext.P10 directs the Government to consider regularisation from 15.07.2017 in terms of GO(P) 4/2021, and the petitioner submits Ext.P11 undertakings. The respondent government contends that GO(P) 4/2021 sanctions only notional regularisation and requires refund of salary already paid. The Petitioner’s counsel urges that there was no misrepresentation and that previous approvals and salary payments should not be rescinded. The court stayed the recovery of salary during proceedings and examined the legal position, citing State of Kerala v. P.V. Priya (2021 KHC 473) and Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar (2009(1) Supreme 163) to support non-refund in the absence of misrepresentation. The judgment ultimately directs the 4th respondent to take consequential steps under Ext.P10 without insisting on any refund, and to complete compliance within four months. The petition is allowed in the above terms; the petitioner shall furnish certified copies for compliance.
This bail application, filed by Muhammed Mirshad under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, concerns Crime No. 964 of 2024 at Aluva East Police Station. The petitioner faces charges framed under IPC sections 366 (kidnapping), 384 (extortion), and 376(1) (rape) along with Section 66E of the Information Technology Act for recording nude videos. The prosecution alleges that on 8 May 2024, the accused took a married de facto complainant on a motorcycle to a lodge in Angamaly, raped her, filmed nude videos and photographs, threatened to publish them, and extorted four sovereigns of gold. The FIR initially registered under sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC; rape was added later during transfer to Perumbavoor and subsequently to Aluva East. The petitioner argues that the rape charge was added after the initial FIR, that the case has been transferred, and that his marriage is scheduled for 21 April 2025. He expresses willingness to comply with stringent bail conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail. The court peruses the FIR, notes that the de facto complainant is a married woman and that rape occurred in a lodge. Relying on Supreme Court bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the court grants bail with conditions, citing precedents including Anzar Azeez, Chidambaram P, Jalaluddin Khan, and Manish Sisodia.
This is FAO No.75/2019 from the Kerala High Court, arising out of a partition suit OS 65/1999 and a final decree in AS 156/2016. The key dispute concerns whether a third-party purchaser (the appellant in the appellate forum) could be impleaded in the final decree proceedings and seek allotment of property to the shares of his assignors. The suit originated from a partition petition filed by Laila, daughter of Kochuthressia, challenging a testamentary disposition and subsequent alterations in shares in favor of her brothers and sister. The District Court’s final decree allowed a third party purchaser to participate in the final decree based on the Advocate Commissioner’s notes, prompting the present appeal. The appellant contends that transferees pendente lite should be bound by the decree and cannot reconnect ownership beyond their vendor’s limited share (relying on Ravi T.). The respondents (including the third-party purchaser and other heirs) argued for protection under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act and invoked precedents like Khader, Madhukumar, Brahmvart and Michael to justify equity-friendly allocations. The Kerala High Court ultimately upheld the District Court’s approach, dismissing the FAO and concluding there is no need to disturb the final decree, while recognizing the relevant equitable principles that govern co-ownership and transfer of undivided shares.
This High Court of Kerala bail petition concerns three accused—Visakh, Aadith, and Sajishnu—in Crime No. 508/2025 of Irinjalakuda Police Station, Thrissur. The petitioners sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) after being in custody since 21.03.2025. The prosecution alleges the accused attacked a defacto complainant and his companion with a stone and wooden logs at a toddy shop on 20.03.2025, causing injuries and potentially endangering life. The offences cited include Sections 126(2), 118(1), 110 and 3(5) of the BNS. Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting serious allegations and, for petitioners 2 and 3, criminal antecedents including NDPS cases. While acknowledging gravity, the court relied on long-standing bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) and subsequent authorities such as Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024), Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025) to frame the principle. On balancing considerations, the judge found that the petitioners can be released on bail with stringent conditions. The order requires bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO, non-extraneous travel, no commission of similar offences, and that observations are limited to the bail proceeding. The judgment is a single-judge order by P. V. Kunhikrishnan, with neutral citation 2025:KER:30857.
BAIL APPL. Nos.4959 & 4972 of 2025 Two bail applications, B.A. Nos. 4959 and 4972 of 2025, arise from Crime No. 605 of 2025 of the Chathannoor Police Station, Kollam, involving offences under sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (BNS) and other provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). The petitioners—Anoop (4959) and Roopesh and Shaji (4972)—are accused in the same offence and have been in custody since 30.03.2025 following an alleged temple-festival procession confrontation, during which the complainant was restrained and injured; the first accused allegedly waved a knife and the second accused stabbed with a key. The matter was heard by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, who disposed of both petitions by a common order. While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, the Court held that prolonged detention is unwarranted and invoked the well-established principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Relying on precedents such as Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Court granted bail with stringent conditions, noting that the observations are limited to the bail petition and relying on Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala. The order allows bail with conditions and retains powers of cancellation if violated.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5048 OF 2025 This is a bail application filed by Muhammed Shareef, accused in Crime No.03 of 2024 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Kannur, challenging an order in Bail Appl. No. 733 of 2025 before the Kerala High Court. The accused is charged under Section 22(c) NDPS Act for possession of 134.178 grams of methamphetamine while traveling on a Royal Enfield bike on 11 January 2024, and was arrested on the same date. The petition was admitted and heard on 10 April 2025. The petitioner argues that he has already spent about 1 year and 3 months in custody and that the rigid application of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act should be diluted in light of recent Supreme Court precedents (Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal; Hasanujjaman and others v. The State of West Bengal) which hold that prolonged incarceration can justify bail where the delay is primarily attributable to prosecution, and where personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is involved. He emphasizes the lack of antecedents and the preliminary stage of the trial. The Public Prosecutor counters that the contraband quantity constitutes a commercial quantity, thereby attracting Section 37 NDPS restrictions. The court reviews the authorities, recognizing that prolongation of detention and Article 21 rights can override NDPS constraints in appropriate circumstances, and ultimately disposes of the bail application with directions for the petitioner to file a fresh bail application within four weeks, to be considered expeditiously in light of the cited precedents. The order clarifies that the jurisdictional court will apply the principles laid down by the Apex Court and this court in the noted cases.
CRL.A Nos. 1098/2018 and 906/2018 This is a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court (K. Vinod Chandran and C. Jayachandran, JJ.) delivered on 3 March 2022, in two connected criminal appeals (CRL.A Nos. 1098 of 2018 and 906 of 2018) arising from SC 1084/2012. The core dispute concerns the death of a person in 2007 following an incident on a mechanised fishing boat. The prosecution alleged homicidal drowning by the first accused (A1) with involvement of the second accused (A2) and others; the trial court convicted A1 under Section 304 Part I IPC, while acquitting A2. The two appeals address: (i) whether the approver-witness PW1 (a former accused who received pardon under Cr.P.C. 306) provided credible, corroborated evidence linking the accused to the crime, and (ii) whether the alternative hypothesis of accidental drowning due to drunken stupor could be reasonably accepted. The court surveys the law on approver evidence (Sections 133 and 114 IPC/IEA and related illustrations) and cites leading precedents (Sarwan Singh; Bhiva Doulu Patil; Joga Gola; Chandan; Rampal Pithwa; Revinder Singh; Thadiyantevida Nazeer) to emphasize credibility assessment and the need for corroboration. Ultimately, the court allows CRL.A 1098/2018 and rejects CRL.A 906/2018, directing the first accused to be released, while upholding the acquittal on the alternate appeal. The judgment reinforces prudence in relying on an approver’s testimony and the necessity of independent corroboration in such cases.
This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case concerns a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of Crime No. 766/2020 of Nadapuram Police Station, now CC 633/2021, pending against four accused: Basheer, Rashid, Sameer and Raheem. The petition asserts that the disputes between the accused and the de facto complainant (Abdulla Haji) and the injured party (Jameela) have been resolved amicably out of court, with the parties expressing no grievance and swearing affidavits in support of quashing. The court anchors its analysis in established precedents: Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another (guidelines for quashing under Section 482 for non-compoundable offences when settlements are voluntary and fair); Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (approval of those guidelines); Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (inherent power to quash F.I.R. in serious offences when settlement exists); and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (courts should consider compromise terms in personal disputes to conserve judicial resources). On perusal, the court finds the settlement genuine and bonafide, notes that offences 341 and 323 IPC are compoundable, and concludes that continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process. Consequently, the Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-B Final Report and all further proceedings in CC 633/2021; the 4th accused is deceased and his case abates.
This appeal arises from MACA No.312 of 2016 in the Kerala High Court challenging an award of Rs.1,87,505 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries sustained in a road accident on 28.09.2006. The appellant Maya Santhan, riding a motorcycle, was allegedly struck by another motorcycle. The rider, owner, and insurer were respondents. The Tribunal held negligence on the rider and directed the insurer to pay the awarded amount. The appellant challenged the quantum, contending that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000 per month, instead of Rs.13,000, and failed to account for notional income and future prospects. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the appellant urged notional income of Rs.5,500 per month (the “coolie” standard) and 25% future prospects with a multiplier of 14. The insurer argued that the Tribunal’s income figure was reasonable and should be sustained. The High Court, applying Ramachandrappa and Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., and the Pranay Sethi/Sarla Verma framework, recalculated compensation: increasing pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and other heads; granting 25% future prospects and a 14 multiplier; resulting in a total enhanced award of Rs.2,77,585. The appeal is allowed in part. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest, and the enhanced sum will carry 8% interest, with overall disposal within two months.
Mini, aged 47, is the petitioner-accused in Crime No. 153/2024 of the Mavelikkara Excise Range Office, Alappuzha, alleged to have committed an offence under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act for possession of 2.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The bail application was moved under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita before the Kerala High Court. The prosecution contends that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. The petitioner’s counsel submits readiness to abide by stringent conditions, emphasising that the contraband was seized but she was not arrested and that she is cooperative. The court notes the seized liquor is a market commodity and, applying established bail jurisprudence, treats bail as a rule and jail as an exception. It cites Supreme Court authorities such as Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019), Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), and Manish Sisodia v. CBI (2023) to underscore the protection of personal liberty and the need for fair trial, while also recognizing the State’s interest in investigation. The court ultimately allows the bail application with stringent conditions, given the petitioner is a woman and the circumstances of the case, while reserving its jurisdiction to cancel bail for violation of conditions.
WP(C) Nos. 23186 of 2022 & connected cases These batch writ petitions challenge Government Order G.O.(M.S.) No.121/2022/G.Edn. dated 7.7.2022, and the related Plus One admission prospectus, regarding the private aided higher secondary schools’ seat quotas. The petitions argued that the State’s policy to limit management quota to 20% (and to earmark 10% as a community quota for the management’s declared community) is unconstitutional, infringes Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, and violates Kerala Education Rules by compelling private institutions to declare community allegiance. They contended that the Government has no right to reduce a private entity’s admissions prerogatives and that the 10% community quota discriminates on the basis of caste/religion, contrary to foundational guarantees and precedents. The respondents argued the policy is a valid executive decision to curb malpractices, promote merit, ensure transparency, and harmonize reservation norms across government and aided institutions; the 10% community quota is intended to benefit the community of the managing body and to admit meritorious students on a merit basis through CAP (Centralized Allotment Process). The judgment extensively reviews precedent on policy review, vested rights, and constitutional guarantees, ultimately upholding the 20% management quota, striking down the 10% community quota as unconstitutional, directing the open merit seats to be revolved through CAP, and disposing of the petitions.
The petitioner Raihanath seeks lifting of a debit freeze on her bank account no. 40129101019111, imposed by the 1st respondent bank following a police requisition. She contends the blanket debit freeze is arbitrary and deprives her of access to her funds, contrary to fair banking practice. The respondents maintain that the account remains entirely frozen in accordance with police action. The court, recalling its own earlier decision in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826), directs banks to confine the freeze to the amount specified in the police order and invites police to inform whether continued freezing is required, for what duration, and within eight months from the judgment. After canvassing authorities such as Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768) and Supreme Court pronouncements (State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy; Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat; Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen), the court holds that the police must inform the bank of compliance status and banks must act accordingly, or the petitioner may reapproach the court. The judgment also emphasizes the obligation to report seizures to the jurisdictional Magistrate and to serve a copy of the judgment to relevant officers for compliance. The petition is disposed with these directions to balance accountability with the petitioner’s access to funds.
This MACA arises from an MACT award to the family of Bharath Mohan who died in a 2012 road accident in Palakkad. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, found the lorry driver rash and negligent and held the insurer liable to pay compensation of Rs.6,39,500 with interest at 9% p.a. and costs. On appeal, the petitioners challenge the quantum, arguing that the tribunal erred in assessing dependency income and failed to adequately compensate under heads such as loss of estate, loss of consortium, and love and affection, as well as funeral expenses. The central dispute concerns proper calculation of compensation for loss of dependency since the deceased was 19 years old at the time of death and a student potentially pursuing a BBA; no documentary proof of a BBA was produced, yet the tribunal used Rs.3,000 monthly income. Relying on Ramachandrappa, the court notes the need to consider future prospects, adding 40%, and, applying Sarla Verma’s multiplier rule (18) for a 19-year-old, the petitioners argue for a substantially higher figure. The court also addresses heads not awarded by the tribunal: loss of estate (Rs.18,000), loss of consortium (Rs.96,000 collectively for parents), and loss of love and affection (Rs.50,000 to the 3rd petitioner, with Rs.1,00,000 previously awarded under this head being partially adjusted). Funeral expenses are revised to Rs.18,000 per Pranay Sethi guidance, reducing Rs.7,000 from earlier. Ultimately, the appeal is allowed and compensation enhanced by Rs.8,56,200 with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the petition date to deposit.
WP(C) Nos. 23186 of 2022 & connected cases This batch of writ petitions challenges the Government Order G.O.(MS.) No.121/2022/G.Edn. dated 7 July 2022 and the Plus One admission prospectus, affecting private aided higher secondary schools in Kerala. The core issues revolve around management quota allocation in PAHS (Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools): (i) reduction of management quota from 30% to 20% under the Government’s policy, (ii) mandatory declaration of the school’s community by management, (iii) allocation of 10% community quota to the declared community, and (iv) conversion of any failure to declare community into merit seats. The petitioners (school managers) contend that the policy violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, tantamount to arbitrary discrimination, and undermines the rights of secular, private educational agencies. They also rely on precedents that prohibit management/community quotas and vesting rights in management to select students. The State defends the policy as a legitimate executive decision to curb malpractices and ensure merit in centralized admission, arguing that policy reviews are permissible and that the CAP system addresses fairness. The judgment holds that the 20% management quota is permissible, but the 10% community quota is unconstitutional and struck down; the 10% seats are to be treated as open merit seats and filled via CAP. The petitions are disposed of accordingly with a direction to preserve admissions already effected.
BAIL APPL. NO. 6968 OF 2022 Nishad, the 8th accused, seeks regular bail in Nilambur Police Station Case No. 280/2022, alleging false implication, lack of materials, and no direct or indirect causative involvement in the alleged brutal murder. The prosecution alleges that accused Nos. 1–7 abducted Shaba Shareef in August 2019, restrained him at the residence of the 1st accused, subjected him to severe torture to extract information about an alleged ancestral treatment method, and in October 2020, along with accused Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9, killed the victim, dismembered the body, and disposed of the pieces by throwing them into the Chaliyar river from Seethi Haji Bridge at Edavanna. DNA analysis was ordered, but reports are not on file; the investigation is complete with the final report filed. The applicant asserts mistaken identity, no possession of incriminating materials, no confession, no involvement in the crime, and has been in custody since 10-05-2022; he is the sole breadwinner with dependants. The Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing the accused had active involvement and that the vehicle used to transport body fragments was linked to him, with allegations of a corroborative role in a separate murder case. The court cites established Supreme Court bail principles, including gravity of the offence, likelihood of absconding, tampering with witnesses, and the overall nature of the crime. On considering the gravity, multiple offences, and evidence, the court concludes the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage and dismisses the bail application.
Vijin Kumar, the sole accused in Crime No. 1909/2021 of Maranallor Police Station, challenges an order cancelling his bail. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arises from an order in Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 616/2022 and 1831/2021 of the Special Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which granted bail with conditions including that the accused must appear before the Investigating Officer on each Tuesday and Friday between 9:00 and 10:00 AM for four months and that he shall not involve himself in any offense while on bail. The prosecution contends that the accused violated these conditions by failing to appear as directed and by involving himself in a separate offense under the NDPS Act (Section 20(b)(ii)(B)) and the Arms Act (Section 27) in Crime No. 3/2022. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that both trials are ongoing, and cancellation of bail would unjustly prejudice the accused and impede the progress of the trials; they sought to set aside the order so that bail could continue. The State countered that the petitioner showed disregard for court orders and engaged in similar criminal activity, justifying bail cancellation. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents including Daulat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana (1995) and P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2022 SC 2138) to acknowledge that bail can be cancelled under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C. for supervening circumstances or conduct adversely affecting a fair trial, noting the illustrative, not exhaustive, list of grounds. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, upholding the cancellation of bail and denying relief.
The petitioner, a dental student admitted in 2016 to a self-financing college under the Government merit quota, challenges Exts.P1 and P2, a Government Order (GO) of 2016 and subsequent orders concerning fee concessions in private self-financing dental colleges. Ext.P1 fixes the fee concession scheme: 50% seats are government merit quota; 14% of those admitted under this quota are to pay Rs. 23,000 annually (BPL), and 26% of SEBC candidates are to pay Rs. 44,000 annually, with candidates selected by rank under the CEE mechanism; remaining categories face higher fees (Rs. 2,10,000 annually). The scheme also prescribes seats from management quota, including 35 seats to be filled and a mix of fee concessions, with SC/ST benefits covered by the Government. Spot admissions were made, and the final list of concession beneficiaries was published (Ext.P6 shows 20 recipients). The petitioner argues that Clause 7(b) of Ext.P1 is ultravires and that fee concession should be rooted in economic disadvantage rather than rank, alleging violation of Article 14 and Article 15(4) and invoking Indra Sawhney for the principle of creamy layer. The court, however, upholds Ext.P1’s structure, clarifies the 20-concession limit, and disposes of the petition, directing the Government to furnish the list of 20 and require others in the admitted pool to pay full fees. The petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.
Crl.Appeal No. 1218 of 2016 The appeal concerns a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) initiated by Jameela Beevi, the complainant, against the first respondent (Unnikrishnapillai Puthenvila Veedu) for allegedly issuing a cheque to discharge a debt of Rs. 1,50,000, which bounced on presentation. The Magistrate convicted the respondent and sentenced him to imprisonment for three months with a Rs. 1,50,000 fine, directing the fine to compensate the appellant under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc-II), Kollam, on re‑appreciation, acquitted the respondent, finding the execution of the cheque not proved and thus not attracting the presumption under Section 139. The appellant challenged this acquittal on the ground that Ext. P1 was indeed issued by the respondent, and mere cross‑examination suggestions cannot negate the presumption; she also contended that she had direct testimony that the cheque was handed over by the respondent and that she is a businessperson with means. The High Court reversed the Sessions Court, noting that a judgment of acquittal should not be upheld where the evidence is misconstrued, and restored the conviction, enhancing scrutiny of the evidence and applying the presumption under Section 139 with a higher emphasis on the complainant’s testimony. It ultimately set aside the acquittal and convicted the respondent under Section 138 NI Act, with a modified sentence.
Contempt petition by eight petitioners (who were petitioners in W.P.(C) No.40084 of 2016) challenging alleged willful disobedience of Annexure A1 judgment dated 25 February 2019, in turn following Annexure A2 judgment dated 12 October 2018 and connected matters. The petition concerns EPFO pension scheme under the 1995 framework, amended by notification G.S.R.609(E) dated 22 August 2014, and related provisions. The Supreme Court’s later orders and the 2022 judgment in Sunil Kumar B. v. EPFO clarified the legality and operation of the amended pension scheme and read down certain provisions, extending options for those who did not exercise pre‑existing rights and directing time extensions. The Kerala High Court, acknowledging the apex ruling, held that the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by the EPFO and that such reconsideration must be undertaken in accordance with law. In this backdrop, the court closed the Contempt Case, while noting that the EPFO may reexamine entitlement to higher pension in light of the 2022 Supreme Court decision, and without prejudice to the Fund’s rights to implement the directions within the statutory framework.
WA Nos.1509/2021 & 1547/2021 Two writ appeals challenge gratuity awards for Kerala cooperative employees who had retired before 2010. The appellants sought gratuity higher than the central statutory ceiling of Rs. 3.5 lakhs by relying on Rule 59 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, and the central Act’s provision for better terms under Sec. 4(5). The respondents argued only three categories—award, agreement, or contract—qualify for Sec. 4(5); the second proviso to Rule 59 is prospective. The court held that the second proviso cannot affect rights accrued before 02.11.2010; the operative portion of Rule 59 must be applied, with the 15-month ceiling only where applicable. It concluded that Rule 59, as it stood, can yield gratuity higher than Rs.3.5 lakhs and thus falls within Sec. 4(5)’s protective ambit, despite the central ceiling. The bench overruled the respondent’s restrictive interpretation and emphasized that statutorily regulated contracts of employment can be treated as part of the service contract and thus come within the protective scope of Sec.4(5). Factually, both appellants had long service (36 and 32 years) and total wages (Rs. 34,037 and Rs. 32,766). Computations under Rule 59 yielded beneficiaries of Rs. 5,10,555 and Rs. 4,91,490 before applying central ceiling; the court directed payment of the differential amounts as gratuity with interest. The judgments of the Single Judge and Arbitration Court were set aside; the appeals were allowed. The court ordered payment of the differential gratuity amounts (Rs. 1,60,555 and Rs. 1,41,490) with 7% interest, rising to 9% if not paid within two months.
