Dear colleagues, I only shared what is available through the web, law journals, reports, articles, and other sources. I'm not a legal practitioner/expert either, as I'm still in service, but a keen reader of legal/HR/Finance matters, truly an academician in real terms. I believe there is a lot more, oceans of knowledge and information to be known and read; there cannot be limits. In this sense, it's not right to interpret the judgments passed by the courts, but we can only analyze for the sake of sharing knowledge. We can disseminate whatever we think is right. The chronology you pointed out is correct, but we can't say why and why not. Things do happen, but the legal system is such that unless there are pleas, courts will not be able to analyze all the cases dealt with in all the courts en masse, as you know. Interpretation of laws does differ from court to court, even judge to judge. For people willing to take advantage of available information/aids, it's proactive. The unwilling persons take advantage of the fact that the Act still remains unamended. I would appeal to all concerned to take a positive view on the matter and pave the way to grant gratuity rightfully due.