IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.2686 of 2024 State of Odisha and Others …. Appellants Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, AGA -versus- Jayanti Sahoo and another …. Respondents Mr. Laxmikanta Mohanty, Advocate For R. No.1 CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 22.06.2026 02. 1. This Intra-Court Appeal by the State and its functionaries seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 24.06.2024 entered in Respondent-employee’s W.P.(C) No.14723 of 2024. The Paragraphs 6 & 7 of the impugned order read as under: “6. Considering the submission, made, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.07.06.2024 so passed by Opp. Party No.6 under Annexure-19. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No.6 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of reinstatement within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner. 6.1. It is however observed that while taking a fresh decision, the decision in the case of Ram Lal (Supra) be taken into consideration in its proper perspective. 7. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.” 2. Learned AGA, Mr. Panda appearing for the Appellants vehemently submits that the learned Single Judge could not have granted the relief to the Respondent-employee by quashing the order dated 07.06.2024 made by the Appellant No.6 at Annexure-19. He also disputes invocability of decision of Apex p. 2 Court in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023, disposed off on 04.12.2023, which is founded on the principle of honourable acquittal in criminal case. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-employee vehemently resists the Appeal contending that the impugned order is absolutely innocuous, inasmuch as learned Single Judge has remitted the matter to the portal of jurisdictional authority for taking a fresh decision in the light of Apex Court ruling in Ram Lal and therefore, Appeal of the kind is not maintainable at all. He also adds that since all contentions are kept open, it is un- understandable as to how the Appellant-State is aggrieved by such an order. We agree with this contention. 4. In the above circumstances, this Appeal being unworthy of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is. However, we make it clear that all contentions are kept open for being considered at the hands of jurisdictional authority. This exercise to be undertaken within an outer limit of eight weeks. Delay, if brooked, will be viewed very seriously in next level of legal battle. (Krishna S. Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AK Pradhan/Priyanka