The State Of Odisha vs. Prafulla Kumar Panda

ITEM NO.15+61

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

COURT NO.4

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).32070/2024

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-02-2024 in WA No.57/2024 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack]

STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

BHIKARI CHARAN MOHANTY & ANR.

Respondent $(s)$

No.276577/2024-CONDONATION FILING and $(IA)$ $OF$ DELAY IN $T\Delta$ No.276578/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.276576/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS )

WITH Diary No(s). 46826/2024 (XI-A)

No.278306/2024-CONDONATION $OF$ DELAY $IN$ FILING $TA$ $(IA)$ and No.278308/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY $\mathbf{IN}$ REFILING $\sqrt{ }$ CURING THE DEFECTS and $IA$ No.278307/2024-PERMISSION $\mathbf{TO}$ FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Diary No(s). 33087/2024 (XI-A)

No.279039/2024-CONDONATION $(IA)$ $\overline{OF}$ DFI AY $TN$ FTI TNG $\mathbf{and}$ $TA$ No.279040/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY <pre>IN REFILING /</pre> CURING THE DEFECTS)

WITH

<pre>Titem No.611</pre> SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).46947/2024

([TO BE TAKEN UP ALONG WITH ITEM NO.15 I.E. D.No.32070/2024] ... IA No.280821/2024-CONDONATION $\mathsf{OF}$ DELAY $\mathbf{I}\mathbf{N}$ FILING and $TA$ No.280823/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING $\sqrt{ }$ CURING THE No.280822/2024-PERMISSION $\mathbf{TO}$ DEFECTS and $\mathbf{I}\mathbf{A}$ FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )

e : 09-12-2024 These petitions were called on for hearing today. $9:26$ IS

CORAM :

Signature Not Verified

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

SECTION XI-A

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Umakant Misra, Adv. Mr. Niranjan Sahu, AOR Ms. Shivangi Gupta, Adv. Ms. Samapika Biswal, AOR Ms. Soumya Sannidhanam, Adv. Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash, AOR Mr. Nabab Singh, Adv. Ms. Swati Vaibhav, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. Delay condoned.

2. Learned counsel submits that the issue here is whether the tenure of service in the work charge establishment rendered by the respondents should count towards computing the retirement benefits. In similar case, notice has been issued by this Court.

3. Issue notice.

4. Tag with SLP (Civil) Diary No. 33400 of 2023.

5. In the meantime, the interim order dated 22.03.2021 in the SLP (Civil) Diary No. 6184 of 2021 will operate in the present matters as well.

(DEEPAK JOSHI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR