p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK State of Odisha and others …. Appellants Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA -Versus- Gopinath Sahu …. Respondent Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. 01. ORDER 03.02.2026 I.A. No.3562 of 2025 There is a delay of 217 days brooked in filing the writ appeal. An application in I.A. No.3562 of 2025, 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. Not 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.3562 of 2025 having been favoured, delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned. I.A. is thus disposed off. ( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge ( Chittaranjan Dash ) Judge p. 2 The State and its Officials are preferring this appeal aggrieved by the learned Single Judge’s Common Order dated 04.12.2024, whereby Respondent’s W.P.(C) No.27900 of 2021 having been favoured, the following relief has been accorded: “6. It is admitted that, both the Petitioners are still continuing on consolidated remuneration till date pursuant to their initial appointment dated 2.12.2011 as Gardeners. In the meantime, the Group-C and Group-D Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013 has already been repealed. Therefore, considering the principles as decided in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the subsequent decisions, it is directed to regularize the service of the Petitioners, who are continuing for more than 13 years in the same post, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 2. Learned AGA appearing for the Appellants fervently submits that learned Single Judge grossly erred in according the relief of regularization in terms of the decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1; he also points out that all posts having been abolished vide Government Resolution dated 19.05.2010, the regularization could not have been directed at all, when contractual appointment was the mode of engagement. He also draws our attention to Rule 5(2) of Odisha Group-C and Group-D Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent-employee makes submission in justification of the impugned order contending that, this is a text book case for regularization in terms of Umadevi supra, even if the ratio in Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 1034 and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Gajiabad, p. 3 MANU/SC/0139/2025 is not invocable. He also draws our attention to the Resolution dated 17.09.2013, which was a part of record before the learned Single Judge to countenance his submission that in terms of Paragraph-2(1), his client is entitled to regularization after the completion of six years, as distinguished from a period of 10 years contemplated under Umadevi supra. He adds that, there exists vacancy in the post in question. There was public advertisement pursuant to which his client staked claim for engagement; competent authority, after verifying the credentials as to eligibility & qualification, has engaged him. At this length of time, denying relief of regularization would be very unjust and therefore, appeal of the State should be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are of the considered opinion that the subject matter of this appeal is substantially similar to the one in W.A. No.3019 of 2023 between Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Govt. of Odisha v. Kabindranath Sahoo disposed off by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.12.2023. Similar cases should be decided similarly is the rudimentary principle of adjudication. The said order was carried in SLP(C) Diary No.34606 of 2025 and the same came to be rejected on the ground of delay vide order dated 25.11.2025. Therefore, this appeal also has to meet same fate. 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-employee, pressing into service Paragraph-2(1) of Government Resolution dated 17.09.2013, contends that the regularization is by a deeming provision, once a contractual employee like his client p. 4 has put in a service of six years, the benefit of this Resolution needs to be granted to him, who has been appointed on 02.12.2011. In the above circumstances, Writ Appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy. The order of the learned Single Judge to be implemented within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks and compliance report to be filed before the Registrar General of this Court within one (1) week next following, failing which the erring officials run the risk of contempt action. Web copy of the order to be acted upon by all concerned. ( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge ( Chittaranjan Dash ) Judge Anisha Designation: Jr. Stenographer