Step 1: Understanding the scenario.
Kamal is bound by an agreement that fixes the general price of a haircut. If he charges more for the same service, he will be violating the agreement. The question asks which option allows him to earn more money with the least violation of the agreed terms.
Step 2: Evaluate each option.
- (A) By introducing a new and specialized service, Kamal differentiates it from the regular haircut. Hence, charging Rs. 130 is legitimate because it is a new category of service, not a violation of the fixed haircut price. This is minimal violation.
- (B) Opening another shop and charging Rs. 150 is a direct violation and can create disputes with competitors, hence not minimal.
- (C) Charging Rs. 130 for “jumping the queue” is essentially the same haircut, just with priority, which is still a violation of the spirit of the agreement.
- (D) Charging Rs. 115 but giving the next service free distorts the agreed pricing model, creating confusion and still violating the agreement.
- (E) Extending working hours does not increase the price, only increases availability, so it does not help Kamal charge higher.
Step 3: Conclusion.
The most reasonable and least violative approach is to introduce a specialized new service at Rs. 130. This allows Kamal to earn more while formally staying close to the agreement.
\[
\boxed{\text{Correct Answer: (A) He should introduce a new and specialized service at Rs. 130.}}
\]