IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 2960 of 2024 State of Odisha and Others …. Appellants Mr. Sudhir Kumar Patra, S.C. For A.G. -versus- G. Madhusudan Rao and Others …. Respondents Mr. Laxmikanta Mohanty, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ORDER Order No. 09.03.2026 01. I.A. No.7723 of 2024 There is a delay of 160 days brooked in filing the Writ Appeal. An application in I.A. No.7723 of 2024, supported by affidavit, accompanies the Appeal Memo, wherein delay is plausibly explained. Condonation of delay would not prejudice case of the other side, inasmuch as matter would be heard on merit. Non-condoning will oust the Appellants from Court, which Courts exercising writ jurisdiction in Appeal not do. In the above circumstances, application in I.A. No.7723 of 2024 having been favoured, delay in filing the Writ Appeal is condoned. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge W.A. No. 2960 of 2024 The subject matter of this Appeal by the State is substantially similar to the one treated by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.2879 of 2024 between State and Others vs. Ananda Chandra Das heard & disposed off on 25.07.2025. 2. In Paragraphs 10 & 11 of the said decision, it is observed as under: “10. Learned counsel for the respondents also refers to the judgment dated 02.07.2025 passed by this Bench in WA No. 1323 of 2023 (State of Odisha and others v. Chhabindra Kumar Samal). By the said judgment writ appeal was dismissed following the judgment of the apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.(s)13077 of 2020 (State of Odisha and others v. Amit Kumar Mishra and others), to contend that as held in Chhabindra Kumar Samal, after the issues are set at rest by the apex Court, this Court should not further examine the issue by reopening the settled position of law as far as the present case and the similar cases are concerned. 11. We have reproduced Bhabagrahi Patri (supra) which in turn quotes with approval the order passed in Dr. Chittaranjan Meher (supra). We also note that in Priyambada Pattanaik (supra) it has been held that since it is found that "the same set of facts and circumstances arising out of the same State, Dr. Chittaranjan Meher has to be followed. In view of the above discussions in our considered opinion, the directions issued in Birenmitra Swain (supra) is also applicable to this case as held by the learned Single Judge. For the reasons indicated above and the discussions made, the writ appeal fails. The order passed by the learned Single Judge shall be implemented within three months forthwith. Now costs made easy.” 3. The vehement submission of learned AGA that in the decision in Ananda Chandra Das, the employee was already regularized in service unlike the appeal at hand and therefore, that factor would weigh in favour of the Appellant for interference of this Court, does not impress us. That factor is otherwise also not relevant. In the above circumstances, the Appeal fails. The order passed by the learned Single Judge shall be implemented within three months forthwith. Now costs made easy. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay/Sarbani Designation: Junior Stenographer