IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : September 16, 2025 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Appellants VERSUS AMIT KUMAR .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present : Mr. Gurminder Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. K.K.Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ayhush Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 03.09.2025, the operative portion whereof reads as under:-

“In the meantime the operation of the orders dated

17.05.2022 (Annexure P-17), 23.11.2022 (Annexure P-20) and 06.06.2025 (Annexure P-25) shall remain stayed till next date of hearing. In case he has been ousted from the services shall be put back into service forthwith till the next date of hearing without any failure.

It is also made clear that if the interim directions is not complied with, Regional Manager FCI, Punjab Region shall remain present in the Court.”

2. The primary submission raised on behalf of the appellants is that the interim direction issued by the learned Single Judge has the trapping of a ‘judgment’ in as much as the order of compulsory retirement passed in the year 2022 has not only been stayed but a direction has been issued to put back the respondent in service, which could have been passed only if the writ petition is allowed finally. He submits that law is settled that such direction at the interim stage could not have been issued which could have otherwise been passed only at the stage of final disposal.

3. Mr. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent, however, raised objection to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that the appeal under Clause 10 would not be maintainable arising out of an interim order. He also submits that the stay of the punishment order would not amount to grant of final hearing. He has taken us through the orders and the proceedings to contend that there existed no material on record to proceed against the respondent on account of which the order has been passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellants, however, points out that in respect of the charge of bribery, the respondent was not only arrested but a charge-sheet has also been filed against him and the matter is pending before the Court. He also submits that the order of compulsory retirement has been interfered with by the learned Single Judge with the direction to put back the respondent into service. Further direction has been issued that if the interim direction is not complied, the Regional Manager, FCI shall remain present in the Court. He contended that such orders would qualify to be a ‘judgment’ against which an appeal would lie. It is also argued on behalf of the appellants that the interim prayer in the writ petition was only to stay the order and there was no prayer for re-instatement as has been allowed by the learned Single Judge.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

6. The law with regard to maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal arising out of an interim order is by now well settled. The appeal under Clause 10 would be maintainable only against a ‘judgment’. An appeal would ordinarily not lie against an order unless such order qualifies to be a ‘judgment’, therefore, the question that arises before us is as to whether the order of the learned Single Judge in the facts of the case qualifies to be a ‘judgment’ or not?

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the relief which could have been granted only at the stage of final hearing ought not to be allowed at the interim stage. Reliance is placed on the ‘judgment’ of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of UP and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki, 2009 (17) SCC 555, wherein the Court has observed as under:-

“P