passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.
2. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner filed the
(ii)To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order directing respondent No.4 to
declare the probation of the petitioner in the post of Full
Time Menial so as to enable her to avail all service benefits
attached to the same forthwith or within such time as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice.
2025:KER:53806
(iii)To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order directing respondent Nos. 3, 4 and
5 to sanction and disburse increment that had fallen due to
the petitioner along with the regularization of her service
with effect from 25.10.2023 onwards in the light of Ext. P3,
P13 and P14 judgments passed by this Hon'ble Court
forthwith or within such time as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice".
3. According to the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, she was
appointed as a Full Time Menial in Devaswom Board High School,
Erumely, as per Ext.P1 appointment order dated 25.10.2023. By
Ext.P3 judgment dated 26.06.2024 in W.P.(C)No.12790 of 2024,
this Court directed to approve the said appointment. The writ
petitioner was granted salary and allowances with effect from
25.10.2023 to 06.06.2024 provisionally, and the salary was
deposited in her PF account as per Ext.P4 approval order dated
13.10.2024 passed by the District Educational Officer. By Ext.P6
order dated 06.06.2024, she was transferred to Devaswom Board
Higher Secondary School, Parumala, and she joined duty in that
school on 07.06.2024. However, she has not been paid salary and
allowances with effect from that date, on the ground that the
promotion of the person in whose vacancy the 1 st respondent-writ
2025:KER:53806
petitioner was transferred and posted has not so far approved.
Therefore, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner filed the writ petition
contending that the issue is fully covered by Ext.P13 judgment
dated 02.03.2021 in Bipin Pavithran V. and Another v. State
of Kerala and Others [2021 (2) KHC 515] and Ext.P14
judgment dated 10.11.2021 in W.A.No.1358 of 2021 and
connected matters.
4. On 17.03.2025, the learned Single Judge passed the
impugned interim order, which reads thus;
"It is submitted that promotion of Sri. Shambu Krishnan and
transfer of Sri. Vishnu Sankar have not been approved. It is
for that reason that the petitioner's transfer as Full Time
Menial in Devaswom Board Higher Secondary School,
Parumala not approved. Due to the said reason, the
petitioner is continuing to work without salary.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was an approved
Full Time Menial in the Devaswom Board Higher Secondary
School, Erumely drawing salary.
3. In the circumstances, there will be an interim order
directing that the petitioner be paid monthly salary
provisionally from the ensuing month onwards, subject to
further orders in this writ petition."
5. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the
learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner.
2025:KER:53806
6. As noticed herein above, one of the reliefs sought for in
the writ petition by the 1st respondent-writ petitioner is to declare
the probation of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner in the post of
Full Time Menial, so as to enable her to avail all service benefits
attached to the same forthwith or within such time fixed as this
Court may deem fit. The learned Senior Government Pleader
would submit that the appellants have already filed a counter
affidavit before the learned Single Judge, and even then, an
interim order directing the appellants to pay the monthly salary
provisionally to the 1st respondent was ordered by the learned
Single Judge, which is in effect granting of the final relief sought
for in the writ petition.
7. On the question of maintainability of a writ appeal under
Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, against an interim
order passed by a learned Single Judge during the pendency of
the writ petition, the Larger Bench in K.S. Das v. State of Kerala
[1992 (2) KLT 358] held that the word 'order' in Section 5(i) of
the Act includes, apart from other orders, orders passed by the
High Court in miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petitions,
provided the orders are to be in force pending the writ petition.
2025:KER:53806
An appeal would lie against such orders only if the orders
substantially affect or touch upon the substantial rights or
liabilities of the parties or are matters of moment and cause
substantial prejudice to the parties. The nature of the 'order'
appealable belongs to the category of 'intermediate orders'
referred to by the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of
Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551]. The word 'order' is not
confined to 'final order' which disposes of the writ petition. The
'orders' should not however, be ad-interim orders in force pending
the miscellaneous petition or orders merely of a procedural nature.
8. In Thomas P.T. and another v. Bijo Thomas and
others [2021 (6) KLT 196], a Division Bench of this Court
noticed that the view that was upheld by the Larger Bench in K.S.
Das [1992 (2) KLT 358] was that even though an appeal could
be filed against an interlocutory order passed in a writ petition, in
order to be qualified for challenge in an appeal, the order shall be
either substantially affecting or touching upon the substantial
rights or liabilities of the parties or which are matters of moment
and cause substantial prejudice to the parties. According to the
Larger Bench, the nature of the order appealable belongs to the
2025:KER:53806
category of intermediate orders referred to by the Apex Court in
Madhu Limaye [(1977) 4 SCC 551]. It was, however, clarified
by the Larger Bench that such orders should not, however, be ad
interim orders or orders merely of a procedural nature.
9. This Court in State of Kerala v. Pradeepkumar A.V.
[2025 (1) KHC 672] wherein one among us [Anil K. Narendran,
J] was a party after considering the issue of maintainability of a
writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958,
against an interim order, by noting the principles laid down in K.S
Das v. State of Kerala [1992 (2) KLT 358], Madhu Limaye
v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551] and Thomas
P.T. and another v. Bijo Thomas and others [2021 (6) KLT
196], held that the interim order of the learned Single Judge in
that particular case not being an order merely procedural in nature
and being an order touching upon the substantial rights and
liabilities of the parties and causing substantial prejudice to the
appellants is an interim order qualified for challenge in an appeal
filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.
10. In the instant case also the interim relief granted by the
learned Single Judge is nothing but one of the final reliefs sought
2025:KER:53806
for in the writ petition. Therefore, instead of passing the impugned
interim order dated 17.03.2025, the learned Single Judge ought
to have considered the rival contentions and decided the question
whether the 1st respondent-writ petitioner is entitled to a writ of
mandamus directing the appellants to pay all service benefits
attached to her employment. In such circumstances, we find no
reason to sustain the impugned interim order dated 17.03.2025
of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.44613 of 2024 and the
same is accordingly set aside.
The writ appeal is allowed as above. Since the pleadings in
the writ petition are complete and the writ petition is ripe for
hearing, it is the 1st respondent-writ petitioner to bring up the
matter before the learned Single Judge for final disposal.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
