An interim order affecting substantial rights qualifies for appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, especially when it seeks to enforce final relief without a substantive hearing.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

1. This appeal filed by the State and the official respondents, who are respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. (C) No. 29931 of 2023, arises out of the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.12.2024 in that writ petition. The said interim order reads thus:

“Post this matter on 10.01.2025. If the recommendation of the Honourable Chief Justice dated 16.02.2021 is not implemented before the next date of posting of this writ petition, the Chief Secretary of the State shall remain present before this Court on that day itself.”

2. On 08.01.2025, when this writ appeal came up for admission, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner entered appearance through counsel. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, this Court granted an interim stay of the operation of interim order dated 12.12.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 29931 of 2023, for a period of one month.

3. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the appellants-respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent-4th respondent.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader would contend that the learned Single Judge went wrong in directing the appellants, by way of an interim order, to implement before 10.01.2025 the recommendation made by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice in Ext.P9 letter dated 16.02.2021, failing which the Chief Secretary shall remain present before the Court on 10.01.2025 itself.

5. The writ petition is one filed by the 1st respondent-writ petitioner seeking a declaration that the senior-most Registrar of the High Court appointed by promotion from the High Court Service is entitled to a higher grade in the scale of pay Rs. 129300-166800 (Special Secretary’s scale), with effect from 01.04.2021, as recommended by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice in Ext.P9 letter dated 16.02.2021 and by the 11th Pay Revision Commission in Exhibit P8 report [Part II, February, 2021] and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent-2nd appellant to accept the proposal made by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice as per Ext.P9 letter dated 16.02.2021 and to issue orders sanctioning a higher grade in the scale of pay Rs. 129300-166800 with effect from 01.04.2021 to the senior-most Registrar appointed by promotion from the High Court service, on a par with the scale of pay of Special Secretary to the Government. The interim relief sought for in the writ petition reads thus:

“For the reason stated in the writ petition as well as in the affidavit accompanied to the writ petition, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to issue orders sanctioning a higher grade with effect from 01.04.2021, in the scale of pay Rs. 129300-166800 as recommended by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice in Exhibit P9 and by the 11th Pay Revision Commission in Ext.P8, to the senior-most Registrar appointed by promotion from the High Court Service, pending disposal of the writ petition.”

6. In the writ petition, which was filed on 11.09.2023, a counter affidavit dated 07.11.2024 has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent-the 2nd appellant herein, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Ext.R2(a) Government order dated 09.06.2021. The writ petitioner-the 1st respondent herein has filed a reply affidavit dated 26.11.2024 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. A counter affidavit dated 03.01.2024 has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent-the 2nd respondent herein. Therefore, the pleadings in the writ petition are complete, and the writ petition is ripe for hearing.

7. In the instant case, the interim relief sought for in the writ petition is nothing but the final relief. Therefore, instead of passing the impugned interim order dated 12.12.2024, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the rival contentions and decided the question as to whether the writ petitioner