Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Sadanandan on 23 June, 2025
W.A.No.271 of 2025 1 2025:KER:44384
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
MONDAY, THE 23
DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 271 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2024 IN WP(C) NO.6469
OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 5 & 6 IN THE
A
WRIT PETITION:
1
TATE OF KERALA,
S
THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, ROOM NO.202,
NORTH SANDWICH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036.
2
HE SECRETARY,
T
TOURISM DEPARTMENT, PARKVIEW,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
Y ADVS.
B
SHRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN, SENIOR G.P.
W.A.No.271 of 2025 2 2025:KER:44384
ESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1
R
TO 4 AND 7 & 8 IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1
ADANANDAN
S
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O V.SAHADEVAN, MEENATHERIL, VARAVILA.P.O,
CLAPPANA, KOLLAM-690528, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH 109810,
2
.BHUVANENDRAN NAIR,
B
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O.BHAGAVATHY PILLAI, MURALIKA, KOVILUVILA,
MACHEL.P.O, TRIVANDRUM-695570,
P.P.O.NO.KR/TVM/0087430
.
3
.K.RAVI,
K
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.KUNJACHAN, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLAD.P.O,
THIRUVALLA-689543, P.P.O.NO.KR/TVM/30466.
4
.S.ARAVINDAKSHAN,
K
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.SANKU.K.N,KULANGARA PUTHENPURA, CHEMPU.P.O,
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM,
P.P.O.NO.KR/KTM/00028025
,
PIN - 686608
5
ERNAD.K.C,
B
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O.CHANDY.K.B, KARIPOT HOUSE, 30/1098-A, COSMO
ROAD, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM-682019,
P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/0011194.
6
OHAN.S,
M
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O.SANKARA WARRIER, POOTHRIKKA VARRIAM,
POOTHRIKKA.P.O, PIN-682308,
P.P.O.NO.KR/TVM/008711.
7
SOKAN.T.M,
A
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIKANDAN, SOWARNIKA, THATTARIKKAL,
CHELAVOOR.P.O, KOZHIKODE,
P.P.O.NO.KR/KKD/0070093, PIN - 673571
W.A.No.271 of 2025 3 2025:KER:44384
8
.BALAKRISHNAN,
C
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY NAIR, CHERAKKAR HOUSE,
THIRUVALI.P.O, MALAPPURAM,
P.P.O.NO.KR/KKD/0070093, PIN - 676123
9
.KRISHNAKUMAR,
G
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, T.C.16/686, JWRA-60,
SRISAISADAN, KOCHAR ROAD, JAAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014,
P.P.O.NO.KR/TVM/0087397.
10
.K.BALAKRISHNAN,
V
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.RAMAN,VATTIKUNNUMMEL, CHELANNOOR.P.O,
KOZHIKODE-673616, P.P.O.NO.KR/KKD/0069829.
11
.J.JOSEPH,
K
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.K.D.JOSEPH, KANDATHIL HOUSE,
KARIMANNOOR.P.O, THODUPUZHA-688581,
KARIMANNOOR.P.O, P.P.O.NO.KR/KTM/0031296.
12
ERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. KTDC
K
CORPORATE OFFICE MASCOT SQUARE, P.B.NO.5424,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
13
HE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
T
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, 28 COMMUNITY CENTER,
WAZIRPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110052,
THROUGH THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER.
14
SSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
A
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL
OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR,
KOCHI-682 017.
15
HE REGIONAL PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER,
T
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
W.A.No.271 of 2025 4 2025:KER:44384
16
HE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (E & RSA),
T
KERALA, M.G. ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
17
HE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANTS GENERAL(AUDIT),
T
KERALA, AUDIT BHAVAN, M.G ROAD, STATUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036.
Y ADVS.
B
SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SHRI.RAJA KANNAN
SRI.JAI MOHAN
SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR
THIS
WRIT
APPEAL
HAVING
BEEN
FINALLY
HEARD
ON
13.06.2025,
THE COURT ON 23.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.271 of 2025 5 2025:KER:44384
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present writ appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High
Court Act, 1958 assails the interim order dated 11.12.2024 passed in
W.P(C)No.6469 of 2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has issued
certain directions to the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary,
Industrial Department to file an affidavit and to pay the petitioners/party
respondents the dues with regard to death cum retirement.
2. The appellants herein are the respondents 5 and 6 in the writ
petition. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the party
respondents herein had filed the writ petition seeking for the following
reliefs:
" 1.Directthe1strespondentbyawritofmandamusorsuchother
appropriate writ to make the contribution of 12% of the salary
arrears paid as per the 9th pay commission report to the
Employee Provident Fund account ofthepetitionerwithafurther
direction to the respondents to receive the same and refix the
pension taking into account the employers contribution.
2.Passsuchotherordersincludinginterimorders,directionsand
writs as this court deems just fit and necessary.
3. To direct the respondents to pay costs"
3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the
learned Single Judge had passed the impugned order directing the
Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary to file an affidavit, travels
beyond the scope of the writ petition, as can be seen from the prayer
W.A.No.271 of 2025 6 2025:KER:44384
clause herein above. The learned Single Judge could not have issued
general directions in the writ petition, directing theIndustrialDepartment
tofileanaffidavitpointingoutwhichpublicsectorundertakingarerunning
intolossesandwhicharerunningintoprofitsandastowhytheStatewas
running such loss making undertakings atthecostandexpensesofthe
tax payers money and ifsuchanaffidavitisnotfiled,thentheAdditional
Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary of the Industrial Department,
Government of Kerala shall remain present in person. Orders of this
nature could not have been passed by the learned Single Judge.
Therefore, interference by this Court has become necessary.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the party respondents opposed
the afore prayer and submitted that the impugned order does not grant
any interim relief, but it only directs to file an affidavit andtherefore,the
interimordercannotbesaidtobefinal.Itisthesettledlegalpositionthat
writ appeals are not maintainable against the interim order unless the
same is of final in nature. Therefore, the instant appeal is not
maintainable.
5. Heard the learned counselappearingfortheappellantsandthe
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. Admittedly the present appeal has beenfiledagainstaninterim
orderwhichisnotinfinalnature.However,atthisjuncture,wewouldlike
W.A.No.271 of 2025 7 2025:KER:44384
to address ourselves how the Apex Court dealt with the concept of
interlocutory order while dealing with the appeals preferred under the
Letters Patent. We are conscious that the appeals under the Letters
Patent are different from the appeals provided under the Kerala High
Court Rules, 1971, but the decisions rendered by the Apex Court are
instructive to understand the nature and character of an interlocutory
order. 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 the
pendency of acase,fallunderoneortheotherofthefollowing
categories:
( i)Orderswhichfinallydecideaquestionorissueincontroversy
in the main case.
( ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which materially and
directly affects the final decision in the main case.
( iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question
which is not the subject-matter of the main case.
( iv)Routineorderswhicharepassedtofacilitatetheprogressof
the case till its culmination in the final judgment.
( v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some
prejudicetoaparty,butwhichdonotfinallydeterminetherights
and obligations of the parties.
heterm"judgment"occurringinClause15oftheLettersPatent
T
willtakeintoitsfoldnotonlythejudgmentsasdefinedinSection
2(9) CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC,
but also other orders which, though may not finally and
conclusively determine the rightsofpartieswithregardtoallor
any matters in controversy,mayhavefinalityinregardtosome
collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights
and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which fall
W.A.No.271 of 2025 8 2025:KER:44384
nder categories (i) to (iii)above,are,therefore,"judgment"for
u
the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. On the
other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not
"judgments"forthepurposeoffilingappealsprovidedunderthe
Letters Patent."
7. From the aforesaid enunciation oflaw,thereremainsnoscintilla
of doubt that interlocutory orders on certain circumstances, could be
appealed against under the Letters Patent. Despite the fact they are
interlocutoryinnaturetheycanbeputintothecompartmentofjudgmentif
it affectsthemeritsofthecasebetweenthepartiesbydeterminingsome
rights or liabilities. There can be three categories of judgments, final
judgment, preliminary judgment and intermediary judgment or
interlocutory judgment. If the order finally decides the question and
directly affects the decision in the main case or an order which decides
the collateral issue or the question which isnotthesubjectmatterofthe
maincaseorwhichdeterminestherightsandobligationofthepartiesina
final way indubitably they are appealable.
8. From perusal of the interim order as well as the prayer clause
reproduced herein above, the issue is notthesubjectmatterofthemain
case. Therefore, they would be appealable. So far as the directions
containedintheimpugnedorderareconcerned,theyareadmittedlyoutof
context and are not the subject matter as prayed in the writ petition.
W.A.No.271 of 2025 9 2025:KER:44384
9. Inviewoftheaforesaid,theinterimorderpassedbythelearned
Single Judge cannot be upheld. Accordingly, the order impugned is
hereby set aside.
The writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
d/-
S
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
MC/18.6
