The court recognized the appealability of certain interlocutory orders if they materially affect the final decision in a case.

Judgment Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra court appeal under Section 5 of the High Court Act assails the order dated 26.08.2025 passed in WPC No.19930 of 2025 whereby the learned Single Judge has issued an interim order which is in the nature of final order.

2. The appellants herein are the respondents 1 and 2 in the Writ Petition whereas the respondents 1 to 3 are the petitioners in the Writ Petition. Respondents 1 to 3 herein had filed the Writ Petition praying for the following reliefs:

i. Declare that Ext.P4 order is arbitrary, unconstitutional and issued in violation to the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court evidenced by Ext.P2.

ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P4 order and quash the same.

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to implement Ext.P3 Government order with due regard to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment/order evidenced by Exts.P2 and P5.

iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue pay slips to the petitioners/judicial officers granting three advance increments from the date of acquisition of the LL.M. degree or date of entry to service, as the case may be, including at all stages of promotion and ACP, in strict compliance with Exts.P2, P3 and P5.

v. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 & 2 to pay interest on arrears of pay inclusive of eligible dearness allowance for higher qualification to the petitioners/Judicial officers from the date of denying the benefit or from 04.03.2024/date of GO onwards, as the delay in payment of the same violates the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ext.P2 judgment to disburse arrears by 29.02.2024.

vi. Issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

and vii. Award costs to the petitioner and viii. Petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filing of translation of the vernacular documents.

3. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned interim order had directed the second appellant to sanction and disburse advance increments to the respondents 1 to 3 for acquisition of higher qualifications (Post Graduation in Law/Co-operative Law) in terms of Ext.P3 within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the order impugned could not have been passed as the same grants final relief prayed in the Writ Petition and the interim order finally decides the issue involved in the main Writ Petition.

Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that by way of the interim order, the learned Single Judge has directed to implement the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Ext.P2 and nothing more.

Therefore, the order need not be interfered with and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader and Sri Jaiju Babu, the learned Senior Counsel for R1 to R3.

7. The present appeal though has been filed against an interim order, on going through the same, it is in the nature of a final order. Therefore, the same is maintainable. The Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda , [2006) 5 SCC 399] , it has been held as under:

"16. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during