p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 853 of 2023 State of Odisha and another …. Appellants Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, AGA -versus- Sahadeba Rout and Others …. Respondents Mr. B. Barik, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. 06. ORDER 02.02.2026 I.A. No.2183 of 2023 There is a delay of 498 days in filing the writ appeal. An application, being I.A. No.2183 of 2023, supported by an affidavit, accompanies the memorandum of appeal, wherein the delay has been plausibly explained. Condonation of the delay would not prejudice the case of the other side, inasmuch as the matter would be heard on merits, however, refusal to condone the delay would result in ousting the Appellants from the Court, which a Court exercising writ appellate jurisdiction ought not to do. In the above circumstances, I.A. No.2183 of 2023 is allowed, and the delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned. The I.A. is accordingly disposed of. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge p. 2 W.A. No.853 of 2023 1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed in W.P.(C) (OAC) No. 2347 of 2001, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition and directed the appellants to extend to the respondents the benefits as had been granted in Kasidev Maharana vs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No. 7246 of 2016. 2. The respondents were appointed under the work-charged establishment under different Divisions of the State Government between the years 1962 and 2000 for execution of office/project works. Some of them were retrenched on account of surplus staff and subsequently re-engaged under different Divisions. Having rendered continuous service for several years, they approached the State authorities in 2001 seeking regularization of their services. As no decision was taken, they filed O.A. No. 2347 of 2001 before the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, praying for regularization upon completion of five years of continuous service. Upon abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.(C) (OAC) No. 2347 of 2001. 3. The grievance of the appellants in the present appeal is that such direction was issued without affording opportunity to file counter affidavit and that the respondents stand on a different footing. 4. It is not disputed that the respondents had been engaged under the work-charged establishment and had rendered long years of p. 3 service under different Divisions of the State. The core issue pertains to their entitlement to regularisation and consequential service benefits after completion of the prescribed period of continuous engagement. 5. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Basanti Das, ordered in W.A. No.1598 of 2024. In the absence of any distinguishing feature, the present appeal stands covered by the aforesaid judgment. 6. The appellants shall accordingly extend to the respondents the benefits as directed by the learned Single Judge within a period of two months from the date of communication of this judgment. 7. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. In consequence, all the pending I.As. are also disposed of. Web copy of the order to be acted upon by all concerned. ( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge ( Chittaranjan Dash ) Judge AKPradhan Designation: Junior Stenographer