{"id":53312,"date":"2009-02-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009"},"modified":"2015-05-31T15:47:50","modified_gmt":"2015-05-31T10:17:50","slug":"k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"K.J. Julius vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.J. Julius vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 9489 of 2006(D)\n\n\n1. K.J. JULIUS, AGED 66 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. UNION OF INDIA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE CHAIRMAN,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.R.SUNIL, CGC\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON\n\n Dated :19\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n             P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.\n             ======================\n                    W.P.(C) No.9489 of 2006\n             ======================\n        Dated, this the 19th day of February, 2009\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                                                         “C.R.”\n<\/p>\n
          The challenge involved in this writ petition is as to<\/p>\n
the proper method of calculating gratuity payable to the<\/p>\n
petitioner, particularly as to the computation of the “per<\/p>\n
day wage” as contemplated under the relevant scheme. The<\/p>\n
question is whether it has to be arrived at by dividing the<\/p>\n
monthly wages by the deviser of 30 (the total number of<\/p>\n
days in the month) or by 26 (after excluding the four<\/p>\n
Sundays\/holidays). It is also in dispute whether the<\/p>\n
petitioner is justified in taking a ‘U’ turn to contend that the<\/p>\n
computation of the “per day wages” shall only be in<\/p>\n
conformity with the stipulation under the statute i.e.,<\/p>\n
Section 4(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act (‘Act’ in short)<\/p>\n
after praying for and obtaining the benefit under a Scheme.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 9489\/2006           -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
     2.     The     petitioner while    working as  Assistant<\/p>\n
Executive      Engineer     (Electrical) under   the second<\/p>\n
respondent retired from the service on 30-6-1997 after<\/p>\n
attaining at the age of superannuation. In fact, the second<\/p>\n
respondent being an autonomous body and separate legal<\/p>\n
entity, the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules are not applicable as<\/p>\n
such. However, the Board of Trustees, on the basis of a<\/p>\n
resolution passed has adopted the C.C.S.(Pension) Rules,<\/p>\n
which govern the service conditions, particularly as to the<\/p>\n
retirement benefits payable to the employees. However, in<\/p>\n
the case of gratuity, it is contended by the second<\/p>\n
respondent        that    the   benefits   payable  to    the<\/p>\n
workers\/employees were under the provisions of the Act,<\/p>\n
calculation under the Act being more beneficial and as a<\/p>\n
natural consequence, the amounts payable thereunder had<\/p>\n
to be limited to the maximum amount of Rs.one lakh as<\/p>\n
stipulated thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 9489\/2006         -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
     3.     Pursuant to retirement of the petitioner, the<\/p>\n
benefits were worked out under the Act, the calculation<\/p>\n
according to the second respondent being more favourable<\/p>\n
to the employees and the maximum amount of Rs.one lakh<\/p>\n
was disbursed to him. After obtaining this amount, the<\/p>\n
petitioner approached this Court stating that he was eligible<\/p>\n
to get much higher benefits under Exhibit P1 scheme. It is<\/p>\n
to be noted that the maximum amount of gratuity payable<\/p>\n
under both the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as well as<\/p>\n
under the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules were originally Rs.one<\/p>\n
lakh. The Pension Rules were amended and the maximum<\/p>\n
ceiling was enhanced to Rs.2.5 lakhs with effect from 1-4-<\/p>\n
1995, whereas, the Act was amended raising the ceiling<\/p>\n
initially to Rs.2.5 lakhs and thereafter, to Rs.3.5 lakhs with<\/p>\n
effect from 24-9-2007.\n<\/p>\n
     4.     After delivering Exhibit P1 scheme, taking note of<\/p>\n
the fact that the Act was amended only with effect from 24-<\/p>\n
9-1997, the first respondent\/Government brought about a<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 9489\/2006          -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
rider confining the benefit of Exhibit P1 scheme to those<\/p>\n
employees who have retired on or after 24-9-1997 i.e., date<\/p>\n
of the amendment of the Act. Aggrieved by the above<\/p>\n
restrictive provision, the petitioner challenged Exhibit P2<\/p>\n
before this Court by filing O.P.No.24282 of 2001.<\/p>\n
     5.     During the pendency of the O.P.No.24282 of<\/p>\n
2001, the first respondent, after considering the grievance<\/p>\n
exposed      from    different  corners, issued    a   further<\/p>\n
clarification vide communication dated 20-2-2004 (Exhibit<\/p>\n
P3) whereby, it was specified that the maximum ceiling of<\/p>\n
gratuity payable under Exhibit P1\/P2 would stand enhanced<\/p>\n
from Rs.one lakh to Rs.2.5 lakhs with effect from 1-4-1995<\/p>\n
to 31-12-1996 and from Rs.2.5 lakhs to Rs.3.5 lakhs with<\/p>\n
effect from 1-1-1997. A copy of the said proceedings was<\/p>\n
produced by the petitioner in O.P.No.24282 of 2001 as<\/p>\n
‘Exhibit P6’ and after hearing, the said original petition was<\/p>\n
disposed of vide Exhibit P4 judgment directing the second<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 9489\/2006         -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent to pay the balance amount as might be payable<\/p>\n
to the petitioner pursuant to Exhibit P6 therein (Exhibit P3<\/p>\n
in the instant case). It was pursuant to the said verdict that<\/p>\n
the second respondent computed the actual gratuity<\/p>\n
payable to the petitioner as Rs.1,62,560\/-, instead of Rs.one<\/p>\n
lakh as originally paid vide Exhibit P5, correctness of which<\/p>\n
is subjected to challenge in the present writ petition.<\/p>\n
     6.     It is submitted by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner that neither Exhibit P1 nor Exhibit P3 does speak<\/p>\n
about the manner of computation of “per day wages” and<\/p>\n
in the said circumstances, it was very much essential for the<\/p>\n
second respondent to have effected the computation only in<\/p>\n
accordance with the Payment of Gratuity Act, particularly in<\/p>\n
view of the “Explanation” given in Section 4(2) of the Act.<\/p>\n
Exhibit P5 has been sought to be intercepted in so far as the<\/p>\n
second respondent has computed the benefit under Rule 50<\/p>\n
(1)(a) of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 9489\/2006       -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
     7.     The learned counsel for the second respondent<\/p>\n
highlighted the inconsistent stand being pursued by the<\/p>\n
petitioner simultaneously seeking to have the benefits both<\/p>\n
under the Act and under the Scheme so as to suit to his<\/p>\n
requirements and convenience. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
submits that the petitioner, after having succeeded in<\/p>\n
getting Exhibit P1 Judgment from this Court getting rid of<\/p>\n
the maximum ceiling of Rs.1 lakh prescribed under the Act,<\/p>\n
stating that he was eligible to have the benefit under<\/p>\n
different Scheme, it was no more open to him to approach<\/p>\n
this Court to have the gratuity calculated\/computed<\/p>\n
following the norms under the Act. In other words, the<\/p>\n
petitioner wants to have the best out of both the streams,<\/p>\n
which is not permissible, submits the learned counsel. It is<\/p>\n
further pointed out by the learned counsel for the second<\/p>\n
respondent       that the second   respondent   being    an<\/p>\n
autonomous body was not bound by Exhibit P1 scheme<\/p>\n
since the Board of Trustees had not adopted the same and<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 9489\/2006          -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
never implemented or given effect to.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     8.     True, though such a contention has been raised by<\/p>\n
the second respondent in paragraph 7 of the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit, the petitioner has not rebutted the same by filing<\/p>\n
any reply affidavit. But it is pertinent to note that there was<\/p>\n
no case for the second respondent ever before, when the<\/p>\n
earlier proceedings were finalised vide Exhibit P4 judgment<\/p>\n
passed on 15-3-2004. On the other hand, Exhibit P3 in the<\/p>\n
present case prescribing the extent of benefit payable under<\/p>\n
Exhibit P1 scheme, was produced before this Court in<\/p>\n
O.P.No.24282 of 2001 (as Exhibit P6), and it was<\/p>\n
accordingly that Exhibit P4 judgment was passed by this<\/p>\n
Court directing the second respondent to pay all benefits<\/p>\n
flowing therefrom to the petitioner. Admittedly, the said<\/p>\n
verdict has not been challenged by either side and it has<\/p>\n
become final.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 9489\/2006           -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
     9.     Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a beneficial piece<\/p>\n
of legislation. It is also true, by virtue of Section 4(5) of the<\/p>\n
Act, the employee is entitled to choose the better option, if<\/p>\n
there exists any other scheme\/provision for payment of<\/p>\n
Gratuity. But the crucial question whether an employee can<\/p>\n
opt to have the best from both the streams simultaneously;<\/p>\n
had come up for consideration before the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
Beed District Central Co-operative Bank Limited v.<\/p>\n
State of Maharashtra and Others<\/a> [(2006) 8 SCC 514].<\/p>\n
     10. In the said case, the factual situation was that<\/p>\n
besides the provision for payment of gratuity under the Act<\/p>\n
there existed a scheme as well, wherein the ‘rate’ for<\/p>\n
calculating the computation of gratuity was much higher,<\/p>\n
though the maximum ceiling was lower than the ceiling<\/p>\n
specified under the Act. Under the said scheme, gratuity<\/p>\n
had to be computed reckoning the “per day wages” and<\/p>\n
the     amount payable was 26 days’ wages for every<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 9489\/2006            -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
completed year of service, subject to the maximum\/ceiling<\/p>\n
of Rs.1.7 lakhs from 20-7-1996 to 30-11-1999, which was<\/p>\n
subsequently raised to Rs.2.5 lakhs from 1-12-1999 to 17-9-<\/p>\n
2005. The contention of the employees was that the amount<\/p>\n
should be worked out by adopting the “higher rate” (26<\/p>\n
days’ wages for every completed year of service) as<\/p>\n
prescribed under the Scheme and the maximum ceiling had<\/p>\n
to be taken as provided under the Act – in view of Section 4<\/p>\n
(5) of the Act providing for the better option.<\/p>\n
     11. The Apex Court observed that the Scheme of the<\/p>\n
Bank in the above case was one of the terms of contract of<\/p>\n
employment between the parties and under the Scheme, the<\/p>\n
employees were entitled to Gratuity on the following terms:-<\/p>\n
      (i)   eligibility to receive gratuity – Minimum 5
\n                                             years of service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (ii) rate of gratuity – 26 days’ wages for every
\n                                   completed year of service.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n      (iii) the maximum amount\n                       of gratuity     - Rs.2,50,000\/-\n\nW.P.(C) No. 9489\/2006        -:10:-<\/span>\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
The contention raised by the employees was that the third<\/p>\n
stipulation prescribing the maximum ceiling at Rs.2.5 lakhs<\/p>\n
was repugnant to Section 4(3) of the Act, and void under<\/p>\n
Section 23 of the Contract Act, which hence should have<\/p>\n
been severed from the rest of the contract applying the<\/p>\n
“Blue pencil doctrine”, to be replaced by Section 4(3) of<\/p>\n
the Act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     12. After considering the rival contentions, it was<\/p>\n
specifically held by the Apex Court that the said “Blue<\/p>\n
pencil doctrine” cannot be said to have any application to<\/p>\n
the said case and instead, applying “golden rule of<\/p>\n
interpretation of statute” (as discussed in paragraph 14), it<\/p>\n
was held that the Act did not contemplate that the workman<\/p>\n
would be at liberty to opt for better terms of the contract,<\/p>\n
while keeping the option open in respect of a part of the<\/p>\n
statute. Accordingly, the law was declared and the<\/p>\n
impugned verdicts were set aside holding that the workman<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 9489\/2006        -:11:-<\/span><\/p>\n
had to confine to the benefits provided either under the Act<\/p>\n
or under the Scheme (emphasis supplied).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     13. Coming to the instant case, the issue stands<\/p>\n
entirely on a different footing. By virtue of the declaration<\/p>\n
of law by the Apex Court, it is true that it is no more open to<\/p>\n
the petitioner to contend that he should be given the best of<\/p>\n
both under the Act and under Exhibits P1\/ P3 Scheme. But<\/p>\n
the question is whether the second respondent was right in<\/p>\n
not calculating the “per day wages” so as to compute the<\/p>\n
gratuity payable at the rate of 15 days wages for every<\/p>\n
completed year of service as contemplated under the<\/p>\n
Scheme, which benefit has been ordered to be given by<\/p>\n
Exhibit P4 judgment. Obviously, calculation of “per day<\/p>\n
wages” was never a subject matter involved in the decision<\/p>\n
of the Apex Court reported in Beed District Central Co-<\/p>\n
operative Bank Limited v. State of Maharashtra and<\/p>\n
Others[(2006) 8 SCC 514]. The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 9489\/2006         -:12:-<\/span><\/p>\n
second respondent contends that the extent of benefits<\/p>\n
payable to the petitioner having been finalized on the basis<\/p>\n
of Exhibit P4 judgment, it is not correct or proper to go<\/p>\n
back to the stipulation given under the head “explanation”<\/p>\n
to Section 4(2) of the Act enabling the calculation of “per<\/p>\n
day wages” by dividing the monthly wages by “26” (after<\/p>\n
excluding the holidays).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     14. The payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was amended<\/p>\n
incorporating the above head “explanation” under Section<\/p>\n
4(2) only with effect from 19-10-1997. But even much prior<\/p>\n
to that, the position of law had been crystallized by virtue of<\/p>\n
the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Digvijay Woolen Mills Limited v. Mahendra Prataprai<\/p>\n
Buch<\/a> reported in AIR 1980 SC 194, wherein it was held<\/p>\n
that the “per day wages” were to be calculated by dividing<\/p>\n
the monthly wages by the deviser of “26” (after excluding<\/p>\n
the Sundays) and not by 30. The above decision was<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 9489\/2006        -:13:-<\/span><\/p>\n
considered and re-affirmed in the subsequent decision<\/p>\n
reported in AIR 1984 SC 1842 as well. This being the<\/p>\n
position, it can easily be said that even if no reference is<\/p>\n
made to the “explanation” provided under Section 4(2) of<\/p>\n
the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the law laid down by the<\/p>\n
Apex Court is quite unambiguous and the “per day wages”<\/p>\n
had to be computed by dividing the monthly wages by the<\/p>\n
deviser of ’26’. The law declared by the Apex Court being<\/p>\n
the law of the land by virtue of Article 141 of Constitution of<\/p>\n
India, this Court and every other Court\/Authority in India<\/p>\n
are very much bound to follow the same. In such<\/p>\n
circumstances, it is clear that the calculation made by the<\/p>\n
second respondent vide Exhibit P5 under Rule 50(1)(a) of<\/p>\n
the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules is not correct or sustainable.<\/p>\n
     15. In the above facts and circumstances, Exhibit P5<\/p>\n
order passed by the second respondent is set aside. The<\/p>\n
second respondent is directed to re-consider the quantum of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 9489\/2006         -:14:-<\/span><\/p>\n
gratuity payable to the petitioner reckoning the “per day<\/p>\n
wages” by dividing the monthly wages by ’26’, and by<\/p>\n
granting the benefit flowing from Exhibit P3 as ordered to<\/p>\n
be paid vide Exhibit P4 Judgment (where it is marked as<\/p>\n
Exhibit P6). Final orders in this regard shall be passed and<\/p>\n
the balance amount flowing therefrom shall be disbursed to<\/p>\n
the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate,<\/p>\n
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a<\/p>\n
copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of<\/p>\n
this judgment before the second respondent for pursuing<\/p>\n
further steps. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be<\/p>\n
entitled to get interest on the due amount, the said prayer<\/p>\n
having already been rejected by this Court vide Exhibit P4.<\/p>\n
     The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.<\/p>\n
                          P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
\n                                         JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
skr<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.J. Julius vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 9489 of 2006(D) 1. K.J. JULIUS, AGED 66 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. UNION OF INDIA, … Respondent 2. THE CHAIRMAN, For Petitioner :SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY For Respondent :SRI.K.R.SUNIL, CGC The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53312","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.J. Julius vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.J. Julius vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-31T10:17:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.J. Julius vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-31T10:17:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2263,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009\",\"name\":\"K.J. Julius vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-31T10:17:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.J. Julius vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.J. Julius vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.J. Julius vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-31T10:17:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.J. Julius vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-31T10:17:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009"},"wordCount":2263,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009","name":"K.J. Julius vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-31T10:17:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-julius-vs-union-of-india-on-19-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.J. Julius vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53312","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53312"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53312\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53312"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53312"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53312"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}