WA No.616 of 2025 - 1 - 2025:KER:29055 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WA NO.616 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2024 IN WP(C) NO.37556 OF 2024 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION: 1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT. P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, . REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695023 2 THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT. P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023 3 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673004 BY ADVS. DEEPU THANKAN; UMMUL FIDA LAKSHMI SREEDHAR; VINEETHA BOSE CINDIA S.; GAYATHRI G. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION: SUHANESH CHAND K., AGED 56 YEARS SAMRUDHI HOUSE, VENGELI, VENGERI POST OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- .(SPECIAL ASSISTANT, RETIRED ON 31.05.2024,OAD, NORTH ZONE, DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICE, KSRTC, KOZHIKODE,PEN G15277), PIN - 673010 BY ADV.MILTON C.V. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA No.616 of 2025 - 2 - 2025:KER:29055 JUDGMENT Anil K. Narendran, J. The respondents in W.P.(C)No.37556 of 2024 have filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.11.2024 in that writ petition. The said writ petition is one filed by the respondent herein-writ petitioner, who retired from service of the 1st appellant Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) on 31.05.2024, while working as a Special Assistant, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants to pay him provident fund closure dues together with statutory interest till the date of payment; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to pay his TA and DA bills from 03/2022 to 04/2024, immediately. 2. On 13.11.2024, when that writ petition came up for admission, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order, which reads thus; “The petitioner has filed this writ petition for disbursement of P.F. Closure amount and T.A & D.A. bills. In the light of the directions in Ext.P5 judgment, there will be a direction to the respondents to disburse the P.F. closure amount due to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. WA No.616 of 2025 - 3 - 2025:KER:29055 The petitioner to place on record a statement in respect of the T.A. & D.A. bills claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition.” 3. In the interim order, the learned Single Judge has referred to Ext.P5 judgment dated 20.09.2023 in WP(C) No.24403 of 2023, whereby that writ petition was disposed of, after considering the contentions taken in the counter affidavit filed by KSRTC, by directing the respondents therein to disburse the provident fund closure dues to the petitioners therein, with statutory interest, until the date of payment, and the staff welfare fund due to the 1st petitioner therein, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. 4. This writ appeal is one filed along with C.M.Appln.No.1 of 2025 for condonation of the delay of 133 days in filing the appeal. 5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC for the appellant-respondents and the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner. 6. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC would submit that the learned Single Judge passed the interim order dated 13.11.2024, on the first day on which the writ petition was listed for admission, without affording WA No.616 of 2025 - 4 - 2025:KER:29055 a reasonable opportunity to the Corporation to file counter affidavit. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent– writ petitioner would point out that this writ appeal is one filed after the filing of Cont.Case(C)No.779 of 2025 by the writ petitioner, alleging willful disobedience of the interim order dated 13.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge. 8. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, we notice that the issue raised in this writ appeal is covered in favour of the appellants by the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Pradeepkumar A.V. [2025 (1) KHC 674], wherein it was held that the High Court, by way of an interim order cannot direct implementation of recommendations that constitute the final relief, as the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the rival contentions and decided the question of entitlement of mandamus in the main petition. Paragraphs 8 to 11 of that judgment read thus; “8. 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 WA No.616 of 2025 - 5 - 2025:KER:29055 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. 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. 9. 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 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. WA No.616 of 2025 - 6 - 2025:KER:29055 10. As already noticed hereinbefore, in the instant case, the interim relief sought for in the writ petition is nothing but the final relief. By way of an interim order, the appellants - respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition cannot be directed to implement before the next posting of the writ petition, the recommendation made by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in Ext.P9 letter dated 16.02.2021, failing which the Chief Secretary shall remain present before the Court on 10.01.2025 itself. 11. The impugned interim order of the learned Single Judge is not an order merely procedural in nature. Such 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 S.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.” 9. Having considered the submissions made by at the Bar, we find that this writ appeal is one filed by the appellants- respondents, after the filing of Cont.Case(C)No.779 of 2025 by the respondent-writ petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the interim order dated 13.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.37556 of 2024. Though the delay of 133 days in filing this writ appeal is condoned by a separate order of this date, without imposing cost, we find that the interference in the interim order dated 13.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge can only be made on payment of a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand WA No.616 of 2025 - 7 - 2025:KER:29055 only) to the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, for payment to the writ petitioner by 07.04.2025, as cost. 10. In such circumstances, this writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 13.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.37556 of 2024, on payment of a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, for payment to the writ petitioner, by 07.04.2025. The legal and factual contentions raised by both sides are left open to be raised before the learned Single Judge. It would be open to either side to bring up the writ petition before the learned Single Judge for an early disposal. Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE sbk/- WA No.616 of 2025 - 8 - 2025:KER:29055 APPENDIX OF WA 616/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE UNDERTAKING