Interlocutory orders can be appealed if they materially affect the rights and obligations of the parties involved.

JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J The present Original Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the interim order dated 12.11.2025 passed in M.A. No. 180/00987/2025 in O.A. No. 180/00472/2025 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, whereby the application seeking to vacate the interim order granted on 10.10.2025 was allowed.

2. The petitioner is a Postman working at the Malayinkeezhu Sub-Post Office in the Thiruvananthapuram Sub-Division of the Department of Posts. He has only two years left before his retirement. By Annexure A1 order, the petitioner has been transferred from the Malayinkeezhu Sub-Post Office to the Mancaud Post Office, Thiruvananthapuram.

2.1 Aggrieved by the transfer order, the petitioner filed the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, relying on precedents holding that transfers cannot be punitive in nature. The grounds raised included that the transfer order is punitive, as it was issued following a preliminary enquiry into certain allegations. The petitioner contended that the transfer order had been issued in lieu of punishment.

2.2 When the matter came up for admission and consideration of interim relief, the Tribunal granted an interim order directing the respondents to keep Annexure A1 in abeyance. Aggrieved by this, the respondents filed M.A. No. 987/2025 on 28.10.2025 in the Original Application. The said M.A. was allowed, and consequently, the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner stood vacated. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court, assailing the impugned order on the ground that, instead of complying with the specific direction contained in the interim order to file a reply, the respondents have filed the application for vacating the stay.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it was mandatory for the respondents to file a reply as required under Rule 12 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which they failed to do. In the absence of such a reply, the case would, under Rule 31 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993, be deemed ready for hearing and included in the ready list for final hearing.

3.1 The Tribunal, while vacating the stay, considered only the fact that the petitioner would not be required to change his residence because of the transfer. Such a ground for rejecting the interim relief is alien to service jurisprudence. Instead of vacating the interim order, the Tribunal ought to have directed the respondents to file a counter and thereafter proceeded to hear the matter finally. On these grounds, the present Original Petition has been filed.

Per contra

4. , the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal was justified in vacating the stay, as there is no bar on considering an application for vacating an interim order even in the absence of a counter reply. It is contended that the Tribunal has rightly vacated the stay, and therefore no ground for interference is made out to entertain the present Original Petition.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. In Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda , [(2006) 5 SCC 399] , the Apex Court held as under:

"16. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories:

(i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case.

(ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case.

(iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question which is not the subject-matter of the main case.

(iv)