Vilasini Ramachandran challenges the detention of her son under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAA(P)A). The detenu was arrested on 27.10.2020 and the order of approval under Ext.P3 was dated 10.11.2020, within the 12-day window provided by Section 3 of KAA(P)A, excluding Sundays. The Advisory Board considered the matter on 12.11.2020 and confirmed the detention on 24.12.2020. Representations dated 02.01.2021 were made by the detenu’s mother and were received by the Government on 11.01.2021 and rejected on 18.01.2021. The petitioner contends that KAA(P)A conflicts with the National Security Act and is unconstitutional for repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution. She argues that the last prejudicial act should be treated as 30.07.2020; if the 11.10.2020 crime (initiated by Police) is excluded under Section 2(p)(iii), the detention would be beyond three months, as held in Jimesh Jose v. State of Kerala & Ors. and Ponnappan N.N. v. State of Kerala & Ors. She also contends that the representation to the Advisory Board was not properly considered. The respondents submit that KAA(P)A is a valid law under Entry 3 of List III; there is no central legislation on these matters. The court rejects the repugnancy challenge, upholds the detention order as confirmed by the Advisory Board and Government, and dismisses the petition.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal filed by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (the 3rd respondent in OP(MV) No.288/2015) challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha award, which partly allowed the petition seeking compensation for the death of Kaleesh on 30.12.2014. The petitioners (respondents) claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging negligence by the driver of a mini-bus (vehicle No.KL 32/1005) on the Alappuzha–Cherthala road. The bus was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal awarded Rs.21,74,200/- with interest and costs, and the insurer contested the decision, particularly the notional income fixed for the deceased. The insurer argued that the notional income of Rs.11,000 per month was excessive and not supported by evidence, urging reduction in compensation in line with precedents such as Soman v. Jinesh James and others and other Supreme Court authorities on notional income. The respondents contended that the deceased was a sand blaster by profession (Ext. A9) and relied on established principles for calculating compensation, including Pranay Sethi and related rulings. The High Court examined the award and the material on record, noted that the Tribunal had correctly applied precedents and that the notional income was reasonable. It dismissed the appeal at threshold, upholding the Tribunal’s award.
This writ petition challenges an interim order issued by the District Collector, Ernakulam, dated 18 November 2010, directing cessation of all quarrying in the Pattamala area of Kunnathunad Taluk and laying down a framework for survey, demarcation of Government land, blasting of unsafe rock areas at the quarry owners’ expense, and enhanced policing and licensing steps. The petitioner seeks certiorari to quash Ext.P1 and mandamus to prevent interference with the petitioner’s quarrying activity, claiming violation of natural justice because no individual notice was given and alleging that the order is omnibus and affects operators with valid licences. The court’s April 1, 2011 order framed this as an interim measure in the wake of earlier public interest litigation and noted site inspections revealing unsafe quarrying practices, lack of safety measures, and topographical damage; it upheld the interim action as a proportionate response to risk. The court also observed that, although notice was lacking, the action was interim and in large-scale violations that justify swift action. In May 2011 the court indicated that individual cases were being examined and that a final decision would follow. Ultimately, the petition was closed, with the interim orders left intact and a caveat that fresh actions could be pursued if warranted."
This intra‑court appeal arises from a Kerala High Court judgment in a disciplinary matter relating to P.K. Rajeevan, who was employed as an Assistant Manager with Indian Bank. Rajeevan faced departmental charges based on alleged financial irregularities and was dismissed by the disciplinary authority (Ext. P4, 05.05.2005). His appeals followed: dismissal in appeal (Ext. P6, 29.07.2006) and dismissal of a review (Ext. P8(a), 30.03.2007). The matter later intersected with criminal proceedings, culminating in acquittal (Ext. P9, 21.11.2011) in a CBI case, which prompted a representations-based challenge—first Ext. P11 (24.04.2012) dismissed by Ext. P12 (08.06.2012). Rajeevan challenged Ext. P12 and the subsequent Ext. P11/Ext. P13 representations in a writ petition filed in 2013. The Single Judge admitted the petition and partly allowed relief by quashing Ext. P12 and directing the Bank to decide Ext. P13. The Appellant Bank contends delay and laches barred relief, that there is no regulatory basis to revisit punishment after acquittal, and that directing reconsideration would re‑open settled disputes. The Respondent contends that delay should be excused given non‑receipt of notice and later acquittal. The Division Bench reverses the Single Judge, holding that admission did condone delay, that acquittal bears on the matter but is not sufficient to reinstate, and ultimately dismisses the writ petition while allowing the intra‑court appeal.
The petitioner, Broadview Security and Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd., challenged Exts.P5 and P7 demanding recovery of Rs.6,19,384/- arising from a stock loss incident at the KSBC’s FL-1 retail outlet (Alangad) and sought other consequential reliefs. The petitioner’s contract with KSBC (Ext.P1, dated 27.09.2018) for supplying unarmed security guards over two years was extended until 2020; a security breach and stock verification led to the alleged loss, with KSBC asserting liability on the petitioner through Ext.P5 (26.08.2021) and Ext.P7 (02.12.2021). The petitioner argued that the loss was determined unilaterally, contrary to the contract terms (notably Clause 19, which makes the security Agency liable for losses caused by its guards or omissions) and to due process; the audit report cited by the respondents (Ext.R1(c)) allegedly showed no excess stock, undermining the claimed loss. The petitioner relied on various authorities, including State of Karnataka v. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills, Hussain M.M v. State of Kerala, Kaikkara Construction, Sriram Engineering, and Koppara Enterprises, to argue that damages arising from alleged breach cannot be assessed by a party to the contract when a dispute exists, and must be adjudicated independently. The High Court held that Exts.P5 and P7 were arbitrary, quashed them, and disposed of the writ petition, allowing KSBC to pursue civil remedies. It also clarified that time spent in the petition would be excluded in calculating limitation.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 848 OF 2022 This is a criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused, V.S. Sunojkumar, challenging two concurrent judgments: the trial court’s conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) for issuing a cheque for Rs. 20 lakh in discharge of a debt, and the subsequent appellate affirmation. The prosecution alleged the cheque dated 5 November 2012 was dishonoured on presentment, following which a demand notice was sent and payment was not made. The trial court convicted on 19 September 2016; the Ist Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur, dismissed the appeal on 30 August 2022, upholding the conviction and sentence. The revision petitioner contends lack of locus standi of the complainant due to absence of authorization; argues Exts.P6 (partition deed) and Ext.P8 (certificate) show the complainant’s status as Managing Director of the firm and the change of firm name to M/s. Unnikkannan Jewellery, which should affect authority to file. The High Court relies on established law regarding presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act and the burden on the accused to rebut it, citing Rangappa, Bir Singh, Kalamani Tex., Kishan Rao, and other precedents. The court ultimately holds no legitimate grounds to revisit the concurrent findings and dismisses the revision, though grants a three-month window to pay compensation and defers execution of the sentence.
WP(C) Nos. 32519 of 2010 & 24692 of 2011 These two writ petitions, heard together, challenge the illegal confinement and false implication of two individuals in Abkari cases in Kerala. Anil Kumar A.B. and R. Prakash, admittedly arrested and detained for extended periods (about 55 and 76 days respectively) before being exonerated, seek compensation for infringement of their fundamental rights under Article 21. The petitions argue that the State’s officials, in connivance with illicit liquor networks, wrongfully implicated them, leading to unlawful detention and hardship. They urge the High Court to exercise its Article 226 jurisdiction to award monetary relief, drawing on a long line of Supreme Court and Kerala High Court precedents recognizing a public-law remedy for violations of fundamental rights and permitting compensation as “monetary amends” for State actor wrongs. The Government counters that compensation under Article 226 is not a blanket remedy and that private-law damages or civil suits are available; it also notes that disciplinary actions were already taken against the implicated officials. The court ultimately endorses compensation under public law, clarifying that redress for Art.21 violations can be moulded through 226 or 32, with a principled monetary award in appropriate cases. It directs payment of Rs.2,50,000 to each petitioner within two months, recovery from responsible officials, and a study into Abkari search/seizure practices over the past five years, with reporting within six months.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal from O.P.(MV).338/2010 pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The petition was filed by SMITHA and four others seeking compensation for the death of Shiju in a road accident on 30.11.2009, where a tanker lorry driven by the deceased collided with a KSRTC bus. The insurer, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., was the sole respondent in the appeal, while the KSRTC and its MD were defendants in the original petition. The Tribunal held the KSRTC driver negligent and the insurer liable, awarding Rs.12,09,840 with interest and costs. The appellants challenged the quantum, especially loss of dependency, contending the deceased’s income as a heavy vehicle driver should be higher and that future prospects be included. Relying on Manusha Sreekumar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (SC), the Kerala High Court re-evaluates the driver’s monthly income, fixes it at Rs.12,000 for the relevant period, applies a multiplier of 16 (age 35) and adds 40% future prospects, with a 1/4 deduction for personal expenses, yielding a revised loss of dependency of Rs.24,19,200. The court also adjusts for loss of estate, and revises head-of-compensation for loss of consortium and love/affection in light of Pranay Sethi, Satinder Kaur and Somwati, deducting overlaps. The result is an overall additional compensation of Rs.14,60,360, and the appeal is allowed with directions to deposit this amount within three months along with interest and costs.
On 21 May 2014, a lorry driven by the first respondent collided with the motorcycle driven by Kamalahasan, resulting in his death. Kamalahasan’s wife Dhanya, her son Adithyan (minor), and Kamalahasan’s mother Kamalakshi and father Vasudevan filed a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for dependents amounting to Rs. 25,49,000. The lorry belonged to the second respondent and was insured with the third respondent. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, awarded Rs. 20,14,000 in compensation with interest and costs. Aggrieved, the insurer challenged on three grounds: (i) the Tribunal’s fixation of notional income at Rs. 10,000 per month (in 2014) was high, (ii) compensation under heads such as loss of love and affection (and loss of consortium) should not have been granted, and (iii) the rate of interest at 8% was excessive. The High Court found the notional income based on Ramachandrappa to be reasonable, and, applying Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma, upheld the Tribunal’s calculation: Rs. 10,000 per month, multiplier 15, with one-fourth deduction for personal living expenses, resulting in Rs. 18,90,000 for dependency. It noted the dependents’ proof (Ext A6) and observed that Tribunals may exercise discretion to fix reasonable compensation. Citing MCD Uphaar Tragedy and Kishan Gopal, the court also discussed interest norms, and New India Assurance v. Kiran Singh’s admonitions against delaying genuine claims. The appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal’s award stands.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC 5364/2019) filed against a judgment/certification in a pending case. The petitioner, a medical officer, is accused in CC 113/2019 under sections 193 and 197 IPC for alleged perjury and forgery arising from a medical certificate he issued advocating dengue fever status for the first accused in a separate default proceeding. The 2nd respondent, the Sheristadar of the District Court, Thrissur, had submitted a complaint under Section 340 read with Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. The Sessions Judge reportedly found the medical certificate forged and cognizance was taken on the same, leading to this challenge under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The core contention is that no preliminary inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was conducted before initiating proceedings, which the petitioner asserts invalidates the prosecution. The State counters, arguing lack of mandatory enquiry is not fatal. The High Court surveys relevant authorities, noting that Section 340 proceedings require objective, speaking grounds (per Calcutta case) and that, while some authorities suggest enquiry isn’t mandatory, in cases involving professional opinion by a medical practitioner there is a need to allow the accused to explain before proceedings are initiated. Ultimately, Annexure A is quashed, with leave to institute fresh proceedings after a proper preliminary enquiry with notice to the petitioner, and a speaking order under 340 Cr.P.C.
MACA No. 734 of 2009 is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal filed by the legal heirs of deceased Sidhique challenging an award of Rs. 3,34,110 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in OP(MV) 1095/2003. The deceased, a driver, was driving a mini lorry KL-8/T-6276 when a oncoming lorry TN-04/B-6877 collided with him near Nithyananda Ashram, causing fatal injuries. The Tribunal held the 3 respondents liable (1 and 2 for the accident and 3 for the insurance Company) and directed payment with the insurer liable to refund amounts to the insured party. Appellants argued the quantum was inadequately calculated and urged enhancement. They challenged the Tribunal’s notional monthly income of Rs. 2,000, asserting the deceased earned more as a driver. Relying on Ramachandrappa, the income was proposed at Rs. 4,000 with 40% future prospects per Pranay Sethi and a multiplier of 17, recalculating the loss of dependency as Rs. 5,68,440. They also claimed Rs. 2,00,000 for loss of consortium, Rs. 12,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 12,500 for loss of estate, supported byMagna General Insurance v. Nanu Ram and Pranay Sethi. The Court partially allowed the appeal, enhancing the total to Rs. 7,62,940 with 7.5% interest, directing the insurer to pay and recover from the insureds.
On 24.11.2005 at about 2 p.m., Subramanian, husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners and son of the 4th petitioner, was riding a motorcycle (KL-13/7567) from Valancherry to Thiruvegapuram when a KSRTC bus (KL-15/3782) dashed against it near Karuna Hospital, causing grievous injuries and eventual death. The petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 sought compensation from the KSRTC (driver and owner), the insurer of the motorcycle, and the owner of the vehicle for a total claim of Rs. 6,00,000. The 1st respondent was ex-parte; the 2nd respondent contended the accident occurred due to the deceased’s overtaking, not negligence of the bus driver; the 3rd respondent did not file a statement; the 4th respondent asserted negligence by the deceased and argued that the petition under 163-A is not maintainable since the deceased’s income exceeded Rs.40,000. The Tribunal awarded Rs.3,69,400 with 9% interest and costs, directing Rs.1,00,000 against the insurer and the balance against KSRTC. The insurer preferred this MACA challenging the Rs.1,00,000 liability. The court relied on Ramkhiladi to hold that where a non-owner/insured driver drives the vehicle, the driver steps into the insured’s shoes and the policy’s personal-accident coverage is limited to Rs.1,00,000, given the premium paid. Consequently, the Tribunal’s finding is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
The case arises as a Rent Control Revision under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (RCLA) before the Kerala High Court. The revision challenges an eviction order: the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Mananthavady, had granted eviction under sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) and dismissed under 11(4)(ii), while the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Kalpetta, confirmed the eviction in R.C.A. No.10 of 2017. The revision petition under section 20 of the Act contends that the appellate decision suffers from illegality, irregularity and lack of bonafide need. The respondents-landlords argue that the petitioner’s non-payment of rent since December 2009, combined with the bona fide need for the petition schedule shop for starting a textile readymade business and for the occupation of a family dependent, justifies eviction. The petitioner counters that the landlady’s proffered need is suspect, noting that the original landlord’s father retrieved possession in 2002 for a proposed pharmacy business but did not actualize it, instead leasing to others, suggesting pretext. The court surveys jurisprudence on revisional powers under section 20, including Rukmini Amma Saradamma, T. Sivasubramaniam, Ubaiba, Hindustan Petroleum, and Thankamony Amma, and concludes the revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence but must assess legality, regularity and propriety. The petition is dismissed; six months’ time is granted to surrender possession, subject to conditions (affidavit, arrears, and compliance).
This bail petition, B.A. No. 1312 of 2023, filed by the petitioner Denny Babu, the first accused in Munambam Police Station Crime No. 911 of 2022, challenges the order of the Temporary Magistrate Court under Section 439 CrPC. The prosecution alleges that around 11:00 p.m. on 09.10.2022, accused Nos. 1 and 2 restrained the de facto complainant and his companions on the Kazhuppalli Beach road, after which the first accused beat Ajith with a wooden stick on the head and face, and the third accused assaulted Vishnu; the complainant sustained injuries including a fracture. Offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 and 212 read with 34 are alleged. The defense submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 19.01.2022, is a first-time offender, and that the investigation is progressing; thus, regular bail with stringent conditions would suffice. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, contending that the accused acted with common design to cause hurt, that Ajith and Vishnu sustained serious injuries including facial fractures as evidenced by medical records, and that the petitioner has prior criminal antecedents; the case diary shows the injuries and ongoing investigation. The court, after evaluating the materials, notes the seriousness of injuries but finds the investigation at a midway stage and grants bail with conditions, balancing public interest and the right to liberty.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from an award of Rs. 19,82,545 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, in OP(MV) No. 381 of 2015. The claimant, Sreekanth, a motorcycle rider, suffered serious injuries in a January 2015 accident when a bus allegedly driven by the 1st respondent struck him. The Tribunal held the bus driver negligent, fixed a notional income (Rs. 9,000/month) due to lack of cogent evidence, and, after relying on an Ext. A16 disability certificate indicating 40% permanent disability, proceeded to award compensation based on a 100% functional disability for calculating permanent disability compensation. The insurer challenged the award in this MACA, contending that the accident resulted from the claimant’s own negligence and, crucially, asserting intoxication or influence as a factor; it also questioned policy conditions. The appellant argued, citing Babu K & Another v. Union of India, that mere consumption of alcohol does not automatically establish intoxication. The High Court, applying the Ramachandrappa/ Rajkumar line of authorities, reassessed the claimant’s income (noting potential future prospects), and recalibrated the permanent disability at 65% (not 100%). It also awarded additional sums for loss of earnings and loss of amenities, culminating in a revised total of Rs. 21,11,745 with interest. The appeal was dismissed, and there were directions regarding deposit of the balance amount within two months. The decision reinforces the nuanced approach to loss of earning capacity, disability assessment, and future prospects in MACA appeals.
The batch of writ petitions before the Kerala High Court concerns KSRTC employees who were either intermittently/temporarily empaneled or regularised under bipartite settlements and government orders, and later faced termination or non-regularisation following policy changes. The petitioners challenge termination/withdrawing of regularisation, arguing that many were regularised under the 2008 bipartite settlement and subsequent government orders (notably 22.12.2011 GO and later clarifications), and that their judgments/regularisations should be valid and protect pensionary benefits. They rely on prior High Court judgments, such as Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala (2013) 2 KLT 258, and related orders, to contend that regularisation cannot be undone arbitrarily. The State and KSRTC respond by invoking the 2017 Supreme Court order in Civil Appeals No. 4435–4438/2017, which sanctioned reliance on conditions for regularisation (including the 120 days of duty per year) and held that employers may impose such conditions, with retrospective effect as clarified by that decision. The judge acknowledges the supremacy of the Supreme Court’s directive and ultimately sets aside KSRTC’s termination orders in these petitions, directing KSRTC to afford hearing and evidence-based considerations for whether petitioners satisfy the twin criteria of ten years of service and 120 days of duty as on 21.12.2011. The judgment envisions possible regularisation with back benefits if criteria are met, and pensionary rights where applicable, subject to due process and timely action.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 482 CrPC challenges an interim order in CMP 872/2022 in CC 868/2017, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused, Sanandh A. Pisharadi, seeks to quash the order on the ground that the court should have directed expert handwriting evidence to rebut presumptions under Section 139 NI Act. The Magistrate had rejected the request, relying on existing authorities, including a Kerala High Court decision that suggested handwriting proof was relevant where handwriting is disputed. The petitioner argues that, since PW1 testified that the cheque was in the accused’s handwriting and the cheque was a signed blank instrument, handwriting analysis is essential to establish authorship and defeat presumptions; the delay in seeking such opinion was not adequately justified. The Kerala High Court, however, relies on subsequent Supreme Court dicta, noting that details filled in a cheque by another person do not negate the presumption of liability, and that handwriting expert opinion is not a decisive requirement. Citing Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari and Bir Singh v. Mukesh, the court concludes that the applicant’s challenge is meritless, and accordingly dismisses the petition.
This writ petition concerns Ext.P1 tender inviting online bids for removal of flood-deposited earth from the Varattar and Adhipamba rivers in Pathanamthitta District. The petitioner (second highest bidder) and the fourth respondent bid; the fourth respondent’s bid, though originally highest, was finally quoted at Rs. 684 per cubic meter after negotiation. On 02.06.2020, the work was awarded to the fourth respondent, who was directed to furnish security deposit (Rs. 2,19,65,800) and execute the agreement on stamp paper within 14 days (with a 24-day grace period for late execution). The fourth respondent failed to furnish the security deposit within the time; he sought Covid-related extensions, and the third respondent granted time to 26.10.2020. Thereafter, the third respondent doubted the quantum of the security deposit and issued Ext.P6 on 30.10.2020 increasing it to Rs.4,39,31,500, with a seven-day deadline to comply. The fourth respondent did not execute the agreement within that period; he sought instalments, which Ext.R4(f) rejected on 24.03.2021. The petitioner sought to be awarded the work, offered to execute at Rs.684/m3, but no action was taken. Interim orders were passed directing status quo (30.07.2021). The department eventually completed formalities for execution, but the interim order prevented final award. The court dismissed the petition, noting there is no automatic right for the second highest bidder to receive the contract and that relaxations in tender terms may be permissible in bona fide public interest, supported by case law.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 CrPC filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 in CC No. 3196 of 2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class–I, Ettumanoor, seeking quashment of proceedings arising from an incident on 24.08.2017 in which the petitioners, allegedly acting in concert, restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted him with an iron rod, causing injuries. The petition asserts that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, supported by Annexure A3, and that continuing prosecution will derail the mutual peace now achieved. The court initially directed investigation to verify the genuineness of the settlement, ascertain whether the petitioners have prior criminal antecedents, and determine any impediments to termination. The Public Prosecutor raised concerns about quashing based solely on compromise, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences—sections 323, 294(b), and 324 r/w 34 IPC—and the non‑compoundable nature under Section 320 CrPC; however, he conceded absence of other serious crimes by the petitioners. Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in a line of decisions beginning with State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, the judge held that quashing may be appropriate where the private, non‑compoundable offences are settled and the settlement does not threaten societal interests, while noting that heinous crimes and acts under special statutes require caution. In light of the gravity of the case, the petition was allowed and the proceedings quashed.
OP (CAT) Nos.56 & 60 of 2015 These original petitions challenge a Central Administrative Tribunal order directing pension fixation for medically decategorised running staff who opted for voluntary retirement in the Southern Railway. The petitioners (Union of India and Railway authorities) contended that upon medical decategorisation the officers could not be treated as running staff and thus were not entitled to the 55% pay-element running allowances for pension; they relied on Railway Board instructions (R1 and R2) which fix pay at the pay band and grade pay plus a 30% running allowance element, and stated that if a running staff retires voluntarily or on superannuation, there should be no further reckoning of the pay element. The applicants (the railway employees who were beneficiaries before the CAT) argued under Rule 17(ii) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 that the pensionary benefits should reflect the emoluments of running staff, i.e., 55% of basic pay as running pay element, supplemented by other service benefits, with reliance on Annexures and a March 2013/2016 Railway Board clarification (R1(a)). They also invoked Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and its 2016 counterpart to challenge discrimination on disability. The High Court, while noting the disability provisions, held that the norms in R1(a) should govern pension fixation for medically decategorised staff who opt for voluntary retirement and that there is no reason to disturb the Tribunal’s order. The petitions were dismissed with directions to refix the pension within six weeks. The decision rests on interpreting board guidelines rather than re-opening statutory rights.
