p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.97 of 2024 State of Odisha and others …. Appellants Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA -Versus- Surendra Behera …. Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. 01. ORDER 06.04.2026 W.A. No.97 of 2024 and I.A. No.337 of 2024 This Intra-Court appeal preferred by the State and its functionaries seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 17.10.2022, whereby Respondent-Employee’s WPC(OAC) No.1240 of 2010 having been favoured, relief has been accorded to him vide Paragraph-6, which has the following text: “6. In view of the above fact and circumstances and since the petitioner has neither resorted to any fraud or misrepresentation in claiming such additional salary from 01.03.2009 and such additional salary has inadvertently been allowed by the authorities which has thereafter been continued by virtue of interim orders of the tribunal, the petitioner shall not be liable for refunding such extra amount drawn as it is likely to cause undue hardship as settled by the apex Court in the case of Shyam Babu Varma v. Union of India, 1994 (2) SCC 521 and S.A. Quadir v. State of Bihar, 2009 (1) Supreme-163 and as such, the order impugned under Annexures-5 and 6 are hereby quashed and the writ petition stands disposed in terms of p. 2 the order dated 11.04.2012 passed in O.A. No. 694 (C) of 2011 and the order be implemented within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order.” 2. We do not propose to interfere with the matter essentially for two reasons: (I) The appeal has been preferred after brooking a long delay of 443 days and an application in I.A. No.337 of 2024 supported by an affidavit follows. The explanation offered in the subject application is far from being satisfactory or plausible. Parrot like versions, we have been seeing day in & day out in similar applications filed in appeals preferred by the State. Therefore, the application lacks bona fide. As a consequence, the same is liable to be rejected. (II) The other reason is despite submission, how the case of the Employee was not covered by the Apex Court decisions in Shyam Babu Varma v. Union of India, 1994 (2) SCC 521 and also S.A. Quadir v. State of Bihar, 2009 (1) SCC 163 has been demonstrated. When the learned Single Judge has followed the decisions of the Apex Court and granted relief to the aggrieved citizen, a casual interference at the hands of this Court is highly unwarranted, to say the least. In the above circumstances, the application in I.A. No.337 of 2024 is rejected & Appeal as well. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge shall be given effect to in letter and spirit within eight weeks reckoned from this day, failing which the Appellants run the risk of being prosecuted offence of the contempt. p. 3 Registry to send a copy of this order to the Respondent- Employee by speed post immediately. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge ( Chittaranjan Dash ) Judge Anisha Designation: Jr. Stenographer