IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. Nos. 2851, 2788, 2790, 2862, 2865, 2867, 2872, 2875, 3025, 3027, 3030, 3118, 3119, 3122, 3123, 3213 of 2024 and W.A. Nos. 158, 278 & 1104 of 2025 State of Odisha and another (In all) …. Appellant Mr. S. B. Mohanty, AGA -versus- Chudamani Debta and Ors. Kishore Kumar Sahu & Ors. (In W.A. No. 2851 of 2024) (In W.A. No. 2788 of 2024) Priyabrata Mishra & Ors. (In W.A. No. 2790 of 2024) Pareswar Parida & Anr. (In W.A. No. 2862 of 2024) Paramananda Barik & Ors. (In W.A. No. 2865 of 2024) Priyadarsini Ota & Ors. (In W.A. No. 2867 of 2024) Bibekananda Adhikary & Ors. (In W.A. No. 2872 of 2024) Soumya Ranjan Nayak & Ors. (In W.A. No. 2875 of 2024) Rajat Kumar Samal & Ors. (In W.A. No. 3025 of 2024) Himansu Bhusan Patra & Ors. (In W.A. No. 3027 of 2024) Mrutyunjay Mohanta & Ors. (In W.A. No. 3030 of 2024) Bikash Chandra Khora & Ors. (In W.A. No. 3118 of 2024) Sudhir Kumar Panigrahi & Anr. (In W.A. No. 3119 of 2024) Manju Naik & Ors. (In W.A. No. 3122 of 2024) Dusmanta Sahu (In W.A. No. 3123 of 2024) Susanta Kumar Mohanta & Ors. (In W.A. No. 3213 of 2024) Dibakar Mohapatra (In W.A. No. 158 of 2025) Pratap Kumar Patel & Anr. (In W.A. No. 278 of 2025) Baidhar Behera & Ors. (In W.A. No. 1104 of 2025) Respondents Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate Mr. S. Routray, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ORDER Order No. 05.05.2026 03. I.A. Nos.1009, 902, 1005, 1003, 1007, 1008, 1006, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1050, 1049, 1055, 1141, 1145, 1142, 1146, 1143, 1147 of 2026 In all these matters, Interlocutory Applications have been moved supported by individual affidavits seeking recall of the orders whereby the Writ Appeals have been disposed off by this Bench. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent- employee submits and we agree that Applications of the kind do not lie except where the grounds of law as discussed by the Apex Court in S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1, do avail. We notice that such grounds are not taken up in the recall of Applications nor these recall Applications can be construed as review petitions either. In the above circumstances, the Applications are rejected in a wholesale way more particularly when the very orders which are sought to be recalled are being examined by the Apex Court in the SLPs filed by the Applicant-State. Ordered accordingly. (Krishna S. Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AKPradhan/Priyanka