IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.1436 of 2025 State Of Odisha & Ors. …. Appellants Mr. S. B. Mohanty, AGA <<<< -versus- Manoj Kumar Dash …. Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 19.05.2026 02. W.A. No.1436 of 2025 & I.A. No.3676 of 2025 The State and its officials are invoking the Intra-Court Appellate jurisdiction for laying a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s order dated 14.09.2023 whereby the Respondent- employee’s WPC(OAC) No.167 of 2017 having been favoured, the following relief has been accorded to him: “3.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioners are continuing as Pharmacist on contractual basis in the Mobile Health Unit in terms of the order issued on 18.03.2008 under Annexure-1. It is further contended that in view of their engagement as Pharmacist on contractual basis vide order under Annexure-1, the Petitioners, in view of the resolution issued by the Government on 29.10.2008 under Annexure-2, became eligible for their absorption on regular establishment on completion of six (6) years of contractual service. Instead of regularizing the services of the Petitioners in terms of the resolution under Annexure-2 when steps were taken to fill up the post in question by way of direct recruitment with issuance of Annexure-15 on dt. 08.12.2016, Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 20-May-2026 18:31:42 Signature Not Verified p. 2 the same is under challenge before this Court in the present Writ Petitions. 4. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand contended that when the Petitioners are continuing in terms of order under Annexure- 1, the Petitioners may be duly permitted to move Opp. Party No. 3 for their absorption in the regular establishment. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court disposes of the Writ Petitions in the light of the order passed by this Court on 28.02.2022 in WPC(OA) No. 1062 of 2012.” 2. The Appeal is filed after brooking a delay of 674 days and the Application in I.A. No.3676 of 2025 supported by an affidavit does not make a case of plausible explanation for the delay brooked. Therefore, we decline the prayer in the said Application of delay. 3. We notice from the contents of the impugned order more particularly at Paragraph Nos.3.2 & 5 that the relief has been accorded to the Respondent-employee along with others in terms of WPC(OAC) No.1062 of 2012 decided on 28.02.2022. Despite vehement submission by the learned AGA, Mr. Mohanty, we do not find any discernible difference between the lead case and the case in this Appeal. Similar cases have been decided similarly. 4. The above apart, we are told at the Bar that in identical case i.e. Writ Appeal No. 9 of 2025, the very Bench has declined interference in the Appeal with a direction to implement the order of the learned Single Judge and therefore, we cannot take a deviant path both in the absence of demonstrable differences. In the above circumstances, this Appeal fails both on delay and on merit. Appellants are directed to give effect to the impugned order of the learned Single Judge within an outer limit Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 20-May-2026 18:31:42 Signature Not Verified p. 3 of eight (8) weeks without driving him to another round of legal battle. (Krishna S. Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AK Pradhan/Priyanka Designation: Senior Stenographer