IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.2544 of 2024 State of Odisha & others …. Appellants Mr. U.C. Behura, AGA -versus- Saroj Kumar Biswal …. Respondent Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 18.02.2026 W.A. No. 2544 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6395 of 2024 01. This Intra-Court Appeal seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 17.02.2023, whereby Respondent’s WPC(OA) No.3449 of 2013 having been favoured, relief has been accorded by quashing the impugned order 25.11.2013 vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition with a further direction to absorb the respondent against the post in which he was continuing. 2. Learned AGA appearing for the Appellants, though submitted several arguments seeking invalidation of the order, we decline indulgence in view of specific admission made by the Appellants, which aspect has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge’s order at Paragraph-6. That reads as under:- “Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-5, the p. 2 Petitioner was appointed as against a vacant Class-IV post as per the own admission of the Opp. Parties lies vacant w.e.f 01.04.2004 vide order at Annexure-6. In view of such admission made by Opp. Party No.1 and the admission of the petitioner as against the vacant Class-IV post vide order at Annexure-6, the self same authority should not have taken a different stand while issuing the order at Annexurfe-10. Therefore in view of such material irregularity, this Court is inclined to quash the order at Annexur-10. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to absorb the petitioner as against the post in which the petitioner is continuing in terms of order at Annexure-6 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order” We are in agreement with the observation of the learned Single Judge, as above. 3. In the above circumstances, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is. The Appellants to implement the order of the learned Single Judge within a period of two months, reckoned from this day. The above apart, the Appeal has been filed after brooking a long delay of 538 days and an application is moved supported by affidavit seeking its condonation. The delay is too long to be condoned. The explanation offered is also not plausible. Registry to send a copy of this order to the Respondent by Speed Post immediately. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay/Sarbani