p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.1810 of 2025 Commissioner Rail Co-Ordination and Special Secretary to Govt., Department of Commerce and Transport, Bhubaneswar & Another …. Appellants Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA -versus- Biswajit Pattanaik …. Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. 01. ORDER 05.02.2026 This Intra-Court Appeal is presented against a learned Single Judge’s order dated 07.08.2024, whereby the Respondent’s W.P.(C) No.33713 of 2020 having been favoured, the following relief has been accorded to him: “6. Considering the facts and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the concerned Department is directed to take a positive view and consider the regularization of the present Petitioner by releasing 100% salary cost under ORSP Rules, 2008 as has been done in the case of the similarly situated persons. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.” 2. Learned AGA-Mr. Jee appearing for the Appellants vehemently argues that direction of the kind could not have been p. 2 given by the impugned order, inasmuch as there are several factors which needed consideration at the hands of the authorities only and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be voided. He also draws our attention to the observation of the learned Single Judge at Para- 5 that whatever benefit has been accorded to certain persons, namely, Hemant Kumar Pradhan etc., is ‘irregular and under review’ and therefore, no positive direction could have been given. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellants and having perused Appeal Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has only directed the Appellants to take a positive view and consider the regularization of the Respondent by releasing 100% salary cost under ORSP Rules, 2008, as has been done in the case of in the similarly circumstanced persons. There is no positive direction as such for according regularization and for releasing the salary cost. Learned Single Judge has only indicated that if in the case of others benefit has been accorded, that has to be kept in view while consideration takes place. Such innocuous orders do not merit deeper examination at the hands of this Court. The other reason for non- interference is that the appeal has been filed after brooking delay. In the above circumstances, this appeal is disposed off clarifying that it is for the Appellants to take a decision in the matter of regularization, in accordance with law and keeping in view all facts pertinent to the case. p. 3 Registry to send a copy of this order to the Respondent by speed post. Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Madhusmita