Interim orders prevent indirect nullification through consequential actions creating third-party equities.

The applicants, the ESIC Medical Laboratory Technologists Association and Pankaj Kumar, filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking to keep in abeyance the operation of various office orders, memorandums, and consequential posting orders related to promotions to the post of Laboratory Assistant (now Junior Medical Laboratory Technologist - JMLT).

These orders were issued pursuant to an impugned order dated 29.09.2025, published on 03.11.2025, which is challenged in a pending Original Application (OA).

This Tribunal had previously issued an interim order on 28.11.2025, permitting the respondents to proceed with the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) but stipulating that the results could not be declared without the Tribunal's leave.

Despite this interim protection, the respondents, through various regional offices, proceeded to issue promotion orders and consequential posting orders based on unamended Recruitment Rules, effectively bypassing the interim order.

The Recruitment Rules for the post of Laboratory Assistant were amended on 08.01.2022, changing the nomenclature to JMLT, enhancing the pay level, and revising eligibility conditions, with direct recruitment becoming the sole mode of appointment.

An Office Memorandum dated 06.01.2023, while clarifying that no final decision should be published without leave of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa regarding a DPC, also directed that any promotion orders already issued be kept in abeyance.

1. Whether the respondents' actions of issuing promotion orders and consequential posting orders to the post of Laboratory Assistant, despite an interim order and the pending challenge to the underlying impugned order, violated the principles of judicial restraint and prejudiced the applicants' rights?

2. Whether such promotion orders and consequential actions, taken during the pendency of the Original Application, should be declared in violation of the earlier interim orders, even if they have already taken effect?

The court applied the principle that an interim order restraining direct actions cannot be indirectly circumvented by collateral actions.

It also considered the legal precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in *State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.* (Civil Appeal No. 9746 of 2011) and *Anurag Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.* (Civil Appeal No. 9747 of 2011), particularly highlighting that there is no right for an employee outside the rules governing services, and the State has the power to unilaterally alter rules in public interest, with new rules taking effect immediately upon notification.

The Tribunal also acknowledged the respondents' own internal directive to keep promotion orders in abeyance pending further orders from courts.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had violated its interim order of 28.11.2025, which explicitly prohibited the declaration of DPC results without prior leave, by issuing promotion and posting orders flowing from the impugned order dated 29.09.2025.

The Tribunal emphasized that when the very foundation of an action (the 29.09.2025 order) is under challenge and interim protection granted, the respondents should have maintained restraint to avoid prejudicing the applicants and creating third-party equities.

The court referenced the Supreme Court's stance that there is no right for an employee outside existing service rules and that new rules apply immediately, which supported the idea that promotions based on older rules might be problematic when new rules, prescribing direct recruitment for JMLT, are in force.

Furthermore, the respondents' own Office Memorandum of 06.01.2023 directed that promotion orders be kept in abeyance if already issued, reinforcing the impropriety of the actions taken.

Consequently, the Tribunal reasoned that proceeding with promotions during the pendency of the OA was unjustified and in direct contravention of the spirit and intent of the earlier protective directions.

The Tribunal declared that the impugned promotion orders and all consequential actions taken pursuant thereto were in violation of the earlier interim orders.

However, since these actions had already taken effect, they were made subject to the outcome of the Original Application.

The respondents were directed to inform the beneficiaries of this development and publish a suitable notice in this regard until further orders.