I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TI WARI , J.

HON’BLE MR. ASHI SH NAI THANI , J.

SPECI AL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2025 Managing Director, Uttarakhand Bahuddeshiya Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam Ltd. and another .......…Appellant Versus Shri Brijmohan and others ......…Respondents Presence:-

Mr. T.A.Khan, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Mukhesh Kumar Kaparwan, Advocate for respondent no.1.

Mr. Yashpal Arya, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for respondent no.2.

JUDGMENT : (per HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) This is an Intra Court Appeal directed against the interim order dated 10.01.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 83 of 2025. The operative portion of the order impugned is extracted below:

“Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order impugned dated 28.09.2024 passed by respondent no.2 is stayed with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue and be paid salary.”

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned order is unsustainable as learned Single Judge has given a relief, which could have been granted only after decision in the writ petition. He submits the impugned order has trappings of a Judgement, therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed.

4. Mr. Mukesh Kaparwan, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, however, refers to Chapter VIII Rule V of High Court Rules, which pertains to Special Appeal, is extracted below:

5. Special Appeal.- An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgement passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgement, order or award-(a) of a tribunal, court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttarakhand Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or in the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any officer or authority made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such act of one Judge.”

5. In view of the aforesaid provision, Special Appeal would lie only against a judgement and not against an interim order. Counsel for the respondents submits that the order appealed is an interim order as operation of the termination order wrongfully passed against writ petitioner has been stayed only till the next date of listing and it is open for the appellant to seek vacation of the interim order by moving an application before writ court.

6. This Court finds substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Since respondents have already filed counter affidavit, to the Writ Petition, therefore, he is permitted to file application for vacation of the interim order dated 10.01.2025 before learned Single Judge. If appellant makes an application for vacation of the interim order, the same shall be considered expeditiously.

8. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is disposed of.

MANOJ KUMAR TI WARI , J.

ASHI SH NAI THANI , J.

Dt: 28th February, 2025 Kaushal