p. 1 P.T.O IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. NO.3351 OF 2024 State of Odisha and others …. Appellants Mr. S. B. Panda, AGA -versus- Pilona Mohanty …. Respondent Mr. G. Patnaik, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD HON’BLE JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO ORDER Order No. 10.07.2025 I.A. No.8526 of 2024 06. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. An application accompanied by affidavit seeks condonation of delay of 133 days brooked in filing the appeal. Delay is not that long and appellants happen to be the State and its functionaries. Some plausible explanation is offered for the delay. No prejudice would be caused to the other side just by condoning delay, inasmuch as matter would be heard on merits. In the above circumstances, application is allowed and delay condoned. The I.A. stands disposed of. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge (M.S Sahoo) Judge p. 2 Order No. W.A. NO.3351 OF 2024 07. 1. State is in appeal for calling in question learned Single Judge’s judgment dated 25.06.2024, whereby respondent- employee’s W.P.(C) No. 14873 of 2015 having been favoured, a direction has been issued for regularization of her services. 2. Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Panda passionately submits that the order of learned Single Judge is liable to be voided since it runs counter to the ratio in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, there being no matchable fact matrix to State of Karnataka v. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247. He adds that the ratio of these two decisions having been wrongly construed, learned Single Judge has erred and therefore interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- employee at once points out that the case of the employee is not one of back door entry; there was selection at some level pursuant to the Policy of the State, as it then obtained; the employee has put in more than three decades of long service with no blemish in service records. He also adds that the learned Single Judge has rightly granted relief by placing reliance on both the decisions aforesaid and therefore interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of learned Single Judge on which he has structured the impugned order. Here is the case wherein the employee gained entry to the service after some level of selection process, she has put 33 years of spotless services; even if, p. 3 there was some alleged brake in service, the same is not that long and that would not weaken the case of employee for regularization. Despite vehement submission from the side of learned AGA, we are not much impressed that the learned Single Judge erred in applying the ratio of M.L. Keshari supra as an exception to the general ratio in Uma Devi supra. Impugned order is brought about a just result to a long serving employee, who is a lady. If regularization is not granted, even in a matters like this, that amounts to denial of justice eminently due to a citizen. In the above circumstances, the appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy. Order of learned Single Judge shall be implemented within an outer limit of eight weeks. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge (M.S Sahoo) Judge Prasant Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT