Interim orders are generally interpreted to be prospective, with the burden of proof on those asserting otherwise. The specific wording of the order established its intended effect.

K. M. S. DISSANAYAKE, J.

This order relates to the clarification sought by the learned President’s Counsel for the Petitioner as regards the effective date of the interim order issued against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents by this Court on 31.01.2025 as prayed for in prayer b) of the petition of the Petitioner dated 29.01.2025 filed of record with its effective period limiting only for a period of 14 days from the date of the grant of the same on the application made to Court ex-parte by the learned President’s Counsel for the Petitioner. The divergence of interpretation sought to be adverted to, by the respective Counsel for the Petitioner and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents had given rise to the instant application for clarification as regards the effective date of the interim order so issued by this Court in that it was maintained by the learned President’s Counsel for the Petitioner that it is retrospective in its effect and hence, the interim order should relate back to the date of the interdiction of the services of the Petitioner, namely; on 03.01.2025 until its dissolution by Court on 13.01.2025, whereas, it was maintained by the learned State Counsel that it is prospective in its effect and therefore, interim order should be operative only from the day of the issuance of it by this Court namely; 31.01.2025 until its dissolution by this Court on 13.01.2025.

Hence, the principal question that would inevitably, arise for our consideration in the matter of clarification so sought by the learned President’s Counsel for the Petitioner is with regard to its effectiveness of the interim order so issued by this Court, namely; whether it is retrospective in its effect; or else, whether it is prospective in its effect.

It is well established rule of interpretation that the general application of an interim order is always, prospective in its effect and therefore, not retrospective in its effect and one who asserts that such an interim order is retrospective in its effect, sole burden of proof is on the person so asserting to rebut the presumption against retrospectivity. This view taken by me would find immense support from the principle enunciated by Court in the decision in Bandaranaike Vs. Weeraratne and Two Others (1978-79) 2 SLR 412 at pages 422 to 428.

It is in this backdrop, let me now, examine the nature of the interim relief sought by the Petitioner in prayer (b) of his petition and it may be reproduced verbatim the same as follows;

“For an interim order staying the decision of the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3 rd Respondents to interdict the Petitioner with half pay as set out in the letter marked (P19), and/or directing the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3rd Respondents to make full payment of the Petitioner’s salary and emoluments during the period of his interdiction;”.

A careful analysis of the interim relief so sought by the Petitioner in prayer (b) of the petition makes it abundantly, clear that, it is a mix of two interim orders of kind as sought together in single prayer of the petition by the Petitioner and they may, conveniently, be split into two as follows;

1) For an interim order staying the decision of the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3rd Respondents to interdict the Petitioner with half pay as set out in the letter marked (P19);

2) For an interim order directing the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3rd Respondents to make full payment of the Petitioner’s salary and emoluments during the period of his interdiction;

It was submitted by the learned President’s Counsel for the Petitioner in the course of the argument that even though the interim order prayed for in prayer b) in the petition has two limbs, the Respondents had opted to not comply with the 1st limb but, instead, to comply with the second limb and accordingly, when the Petitioner had reported for work on 05.02.2025, he had been informed to stay at home and that, his full salary and emoluments would be paid as per the second limb and having so decided to proceed with the second limb