Dismissed¶27

State of Odisha v. Jogesh Chandra Swain

Orissa HC3 Feb 2026WA/2982/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State of Odisha writ appeal dismissed; 207-day delay condoned (I.A. No.7784 of 2024); subject matter substantially similar to W.A. No.2879 of 2024 (State v. Ananda Chandra Das, 25.07.2025); contention based on employee's non-regularization rejected as irrelevant; learned Single Judge's order to be implemented within three months; respondents Jogesh Chandra Swain and Others; Dixit Krishna Shripad and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 207-day delay in filing the Writ Appeal; direction that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be implemented within three months forthwith. ¶27

State of Odisha Vs Jogesh Chandra Swain — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of the 207-day delay in filing the Writ Appeal; direction that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be implemented within three months forthwith.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 207 days in filing the Writ Appeal should be condoned (I.A. No.7784 of 2024). +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The application in I.A. No.7784 of 2024 is favoured and the 207-day delay in filing the Writ Appeal is condoned, condonation causing no prejudice since the matter would be heard on merits.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The subject matter of this Appeal is substantially similar to that disposed by the coordinate Bench in Writ Appeal No.2879 of 2024 (State and Others vs. Ananda Chandra Das, 25.07.2025), whose Paragraphs 10 & 11 the Court reproduces and proceeds upon.

¶18

Key takeaways

The AGA's submission that in Ananda Chandra Das the employee was already regularized in service, unlike the appeal at hand, does not impress the Court; that factor is otherwise also not relevant.ratio¶26
The Appeal fails; the order passed by the learned Single Judge shall be implemented within three months forthwith.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.A. No. 2982 of 2024 (order dated 03.02.2026; Dixit Krishna Shripad and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.). The State's Writ Appeal against a learned Single Judge's order is entertained after condonation, via I.A. No.7784 of 2024, of a 207-day delay in filing, the delay being plausibly explained and condonation causing no prejudice. Treating the subject matter as substantially similar to the coordinate Bench decision in Writ Appeal No.2879 of 2024 (State and Others vs. Ananda Chandra Das, disposed 25.07.2025), whose Paragraphs 10 & 11 are reproduced (referring to WA No. 1323 of 2023, State of Odisha v. Chhabindra Kumar Samal; Special Leave to Appeal No.(s)13077 of 2020, State of Odisha v. Amit Kumar Mishra; Bhabagrahi Patri; Dr. Chittaranjan Meher; Priyambada Pattanaik; Birenmitra Swain), the Court rejects the learned AGA's contention that the employee's non-regularization in the present case distinguishes it, holds that factor irrelevant, and dismisses the Appeal, directing implementation of the learned Single Judge's order within three months forthwith.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No. 2982 of 2024

¶3

State of Odisha and Others

¶4

…. Appellants Mr. Saroj Kumar Jee, AGA

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. Jogesh Chandra Swain and Others Respondents Mr. Laxmikanta Mohanty, Advocate

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

Order No.

01.

ORDER 03.02.2026

I.A. No.7784 of 2024

¶12

There is a delay of 207 days brooked in filing the Writ Appeal. An application in I.A. No.7784 of 2024, 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.

¶13

In the above circumstances, application in I.A. No.7784 of 2024 having been favoured, delay in filing the Writ Appeal is condoned.

¶14

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶15

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

W.A. No. 2982 of 2024

¶18

The subject matter of this Appeal by the State is substantially similar to the one treated by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.2879 of 2024 between State and Others vs. Ananda Chandra Das heard & disposed off on 25.07.2025.

¶19

In Paragraphs 10 & 11 of the said decision, it is observed as under:

¶20

“10. Learned counsel for the respondents also refers to the judgment dated 02.07.2025 passed by this Bench in WA No. 1323 of 2023 (State of Odisha and others v. Chhabindra Kumar Samal). By the said judgment writ appeal was dismissed following the judgment of the apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.(s)13077 of 2020 (State of Odisha and others v. Amit Kumar Mishra and others), to contend that as held in Chhabindra Kumar Samal, after the issues are set at rest by the apex Court, this Court should not further examine the issue by reopening the settled position of law as far as the present case and the similar cases are concerned.

¶21

11. We have reproduced Bhabagrahi Patri (supra) which in turn quotes with approval the order passed in Dr. Chittaranjan Meher (supra). We also note that in Priyambada Pattanaik (supra) it has been held that since it is found that "the same set of facts and circumstances arising out of the same State, Dr. Chittaranjan Meher has to be followed.

¶22

In view of the above discussions in our considered opinion, the directions issued in Birenmitra Swain (supra) is also applicable to this case as held by the learned Single Judge.

¶23

For the reasons indicated above and the discussions made, the writ appeal fails. The order passed by the learned Single Judge shall be implemented within three months forthwith. Now costs made easy.”

¶24

The vehement submission of learned AGA that in the decision in Ananda Chandra Das , the employee was already regularized in service unlike the appeal at hand and therefore, that factor would weigh in favour of the Appellant for

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

interference of this Court, does not impress us. That factor is otherwise also not relevant.

¶27

In the above circumstances, the Appeal fails. The order passed by the learned Single Judge shall be implemented within three months forthwith. Now costs made easy.

¶28

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶29

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶30

AKPradhan

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 05-Feb-2026 10:32:25

¶33

Page 3 of 3

State of Odisha v. Jogesh Chandra Swain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Odisha v. Jogesh Chandra Swain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Odisha Vs Debendranath Samal

State of Odisha Vs Rama Chandra Nepak

Principal Secy, Water Resources Deptt., Odisha Vs Saroj Kumar Rout

Mani Machha Vs State and Others

State of Odisha Vs Gopinath Sahu

Sanjukta Nayak Vs State of Orissa