p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.1656 of 2025 State of Odisha & others …. Appellants Represented by Adv.- Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA -versus- Bharat Naik & others …. Respondents Represented by Adv.- CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ORDER 07.04.2026 The State Government & its officials have preferred this Intra-Court Appeal for laying a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s judgment dated 14.07.2025, whereby Respondents- employees’ WP(C) No.9324 of 2024 having been favoured, a direction in substance has been issued for their regularization in service, by creating a supernumerary post, if need be. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellants and having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: 2.1. Learned Single Judge, at paragragrph-15 of the impugned judgment, has specifically stated about the credentials of the Respondents, who admittedly have been uninterruptedly serving the Order No. 01. p. 2 State as daily wager since 2005. Learned Judge has specifically stated that this factual position is not controverted by the Appellants herein. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the version here. It is not the case of the Appellants that there is any complaint of the like against the Respondents herein. Therefore, a strong presumption arises that their services are satisfactory and the requirement is subsisting. 2.2. Learned Single Judge has referred to the entire jurisprudence relating to law of regularization beginning from State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 to Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 and also the latest decision in Sitaram Behera v. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.8236 of 2024. It hardly needs to be stated that it is insufficient to point out that the impugned judgment is wrong. What is required for interference in appellate jurisdiction is something more, namely, unsustainability of the impugned order, which has not been demonstrated despite passionate submission made by the learned AGA. Above apart, there is delay of 63 days in preferring the Intra-Court Appeal. Although an application supported by affidavit in I.A. No.4122 of 2025 accompanies the Appeal Memo, the explanation offered appears to be ritualistic to say the least. Unless the explanation is plausible, delay cannot be condoned mechanically. In the above circumstances, the appeal is rejected both on delay and on merits with a direction to the Appellants to give effect to the impugned order of the learned Single Judge within an outer p. 3 limit of eight (8) weeks, failing which they run the risk of contempt action. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Prasant