Kerala High Court
Sujith V, Sc vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 19 November, 2025
O.P.(CAT) No.124 of 2025 1
2025:KER:88306
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO. 124 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2025 IN OA NO.509 OF 2025 OF
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONER:
SUJITH V, SC ,AGED 38 YEARS
NO. VS 36809, S/O. (LATE) VASANTHAKUMAR, SENIOR ASSISTANT,
MVIT PURCHASE, VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE (VSSC), INDIAN
SPACE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION (ISRO), VALIAMALA,
THIRUVANANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695547. PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT:
KAVERI NILAYAM, KUDUMBA P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN: 678551. NOW ON
DEPUTATION AS: STORE KEEPER, STORES & SUPPLY SECTION, LAL
BAHADUR SHASTRI NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ADMINISTRATION,
MASSOORIE, UTTARAKHAND,, PIN - 248179
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH
SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, ANTHAREEKSHA
BHAVAN, NEW B.E.L. ROAD, BANGALORE, PIN - 560094
2 THE DIRECTOR
VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE, INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH
ORGANIZATION (ISRO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695022
O.P.(CAT) No.124 of 2025 2
2025:KER:88306
3 THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE, INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH
ORGANIZATION (ISRO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695022
4 THE DIRECTOR
LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ADMINISTRATION
(LBSNAA), MASSOORIE, UTTARAKHAND, PIN - 248179
BY ADV SRI T.V.VINU, CGC
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.11.2025, THE COURT
ON 19.11.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(CAT) No.124 of 2025 3
2025:KER:88306
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order date dated 31.10.2025 passed in OA no. 181/509/2025, whereby the prayer for interim relief has been declined on the ground that since the lending Department has expressed its inability in sparing the services of the petitioner beyond 31.10.2021, no interim relief can be granted. Facts
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Senior Assistant in the 2nd respondent - Vikram Sarabhai Space Center (ISRO), Thiruvananthapuram, who is now on deputation in the 4 th respondent-Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Massoorie. Initially the petitioner was sent on deputation for one year with effect from 06.06.2024. Later, the 4 th respondent had requested for either absorption or extension of O.P.(CAT) No.124 of 2025 4 2025:KER:88306 deputation for the period of two years. However, the 2 nd respondent granted extension for 4 months which expired on 31.10.2025. The petitioner has challenged Annexure A19 whereby the 2nd respondent has declined to grant extension of deputation tenure. Being aggrieved by the non-grant of interim relief, the petitioner is before us.
Petitioner's Contention
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the non- extension of deputation vide Ext.A19 is illegal, against public interest and therefore is entitled to be continued. The learned Tribunal erred in rejecting the interim relief inasmuch as the petitioner is eligible to continue in the 4th respondent's establishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner has been appointed on deputation and therefore, provisions of Articles 14 and 16 are to be followed. No person can be discriminated nor it is open to the appointing authority to act O.P.(CAT) No.124 of 2025 5 2025:KER:88306 arbitrarily or to pass any order in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the difference between "Deputation on transfer and Deputation on appointment".
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss in case he is not allowed to continue on deputation. The order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner be allowed to continue till the disposal of the Original Application.
Respondent's Contention:-
5. Per contra the learned Central Government Counsel opposed the prayer and submitted that after going through the relief clause and the interim relief prayed for, it can be seen that granting interim relief would amount to grant of final relief at the interim stage. The law is well settled that no interim relief can be granted which decides the case itself. The pleadings are yet to be complete O.P.(CAT) No.124 of 2025 6 2025:KER:88306 and without completion of pleadings, the Tribunal cannot hear the Original Application finally. The learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the extension period expired on 31.10.2025 and as such there is no extension and the claim for extension having been rejected vide Ext.A19, the Tribunal has not committed any error and the Original Petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel further raised an objection to the effect that the Original Petition against the interim orders are not maintainable. Discussion and Analysis:-
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal was right in rejecting the interim relief inasmuch as granting any interim relief would have amounted to finally deciding the issue involved in the Original Application, therefore, the learned Tribunal was right in rejecting the interim relief.
8. Admittedly, the present Original Petition has been filed O.P.(CAT) No.124 of 2025 7 2025:KER:88306 against an interim order which is not of a final nature. However, at this juncture, we would like to address how the Apex Court dealt with the concept of interlocutory order while dealing with the Original Petition preferred under the Letters Patent. We are conscious that the Original Petitions under the Letters Patent are different from the Original Petitions 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 Nanda1, it has been held as under:
"16. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories:
(i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case.1
(2006) 5 SCC 399 O.P.(CAT) No.124 of 2025 8 2025:KER:88306
(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) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment.
(v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties.
The term "judgment" occurring in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined in Section 2(9) CPC and ordersenumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, but also other orders which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore, "judgment" for the purpose of filing Original Petition under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not "judgments" for the purpose of filing Original Petitions provided under the Letters Patent."
9. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, there remains no O.P.(CAT) No.124 of 2025 9 2025:KER:88306 scintilla of doubt that interlocutory orders under certain circumstances could be appealed against under the Letters Patent. Despite the fact they are interlocutory in nature they can be put into the compartment of judgment if it affects the merits of the case between the parties by determining some 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 is not the subject matter of the main case or which determines the rights and obligation of the parties in a final way indubitably, they are appealable.
10. From a perusal of the impugned interim order as well as the prayer clause, we find that the interim order is a routine one, passed merely to facilitate the progress of the case until its O.P.(CAT) No.124 of 2025 10 2025:KER:88306 culmination in the final judgment. Furthermore, the impugned interim order does not decide the issue in controversy in the main case.
Conclusion:-
11. In the light of Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra) as well as the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the Original Petition cannot be entertained at this stage. The Original Petition being bereft of merit and substance is hereby dismissed.
12. Looking to the urgency of the matter and the fact that applicant in the Original Application was send on deputation, we direct the respondents herein to file a reply within two weeks from today before the CAT, Ernakulam in the Original Application positively. The learned Tribunal is requested to decide the Original Application as expeditiously as possible but not later than one month after the counter reply is filed. O.P.(CAT) No.124 of 2025 11
2025:KER:88306 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Original Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/- P. V. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE Nsd O.P.(CAT) No.124 of 2025 12 2025:KER:88306 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 124/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A19 ANNEXURE A-19: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. MVIT/EST/36809/25 DATED 15/10/2025 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION (VACANCY CIRCULAR) NO. A-35015/2/2023-ADM/ DATED 03/10/2023 ISSUE BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ADMINISTRATION, MASSOORIE, UTTARAKHAND.
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12/10/2023
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MVIT/VSSC.
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 01/04/2024
SENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE ISRO HEADQUARTERS.
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
HQ:ADMN:12.1/2024 DATED 04/04/2024 ISSUE FROM THE ISRO HEADQUARTERS TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO RO-AD-DEP-
02/2024 DATED 24.5.2024 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 17/03/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER UNDER THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Annexure A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25/03/2025 SENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MVIT VALIAMALA (THE APPLICANT'S PARENT OFFICE), UNDER VSSC.
Annexure A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 07/05/2025 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A9 AA TRUE COPY OF THE RECRUITMENT RULES MADE UNDER ARTICLE 309 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE POST OF STORE KEEPER IN THE LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ADMINISTRATION, MUSSOORIE, ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING..
Annexure 10 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 09/06/2025 SENT BY THE APPLICANT TO THE OFFICE OF O.P.(CAT) No.124 of 2025 13 2025:KER:88306 THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure 11 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
F.NO.20026/1/2024-ADM DATED 26/06/2025 SENT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, MVIT VALIAMALA, VSSC BY THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure 12 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
VSSC/EST/F/1(10) DATED 26/06/2025 SENT TO THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure 13 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/08/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL.
Annexure 14 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICER ORDER F.NO 20026/1/2024/ADM DATED 8.9.2025 Annexure 15 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 18/09/2025 SENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ITS E-MAIL REPLY DATED 19/09/2025 SENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Annexure 16 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 19/09/2025 SENT BY THE APPLICANT TO THE OFFICIAL E-MAIL OF THE CHIEF CONTROLLER ([email protected]). Annexure 17 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 26/09/2025 SENT BY THE APPLICANT TO THE OFFICIAL E-MAIL OF THE CHIEF CONTROLLER.
Annexure 18 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. F.NO.
20026/1/2024-ADM DATED 16/10/2025 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO 509/2025 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 31.10.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH