1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 189 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11505/2024) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11506/2024 ) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 191 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11508/2024 ) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 192 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11507/2024 ) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 193 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8524/2024 ) THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS BINAPANI PADHY RESPONDENT(S) ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Under the impugned order dated 03.11.2023, the High Court has dismissed appellants’ prayer for condonation of delay and consequently, the writ appeals have also been dismissed. 3. The writ appeals preferred by the appellants before the High Court were delayed by some 306 days in Civil Appeal No. 189 of 2026 and like days, in other connected appeals. 4. Considering the reasons assigned for seeking condonation of delay and the fact that in some other Special Leave Petitions, this
2 Court has already passed similar order wherein the High Court had refuse to condone the delay, we are inclined to allow the present appeals by setting aside the impugned order(s) and restoring the appeals to its original number. 5. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, subject to the appellants paying cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to each of the respondent in all the present appeals, to be paid within a period of four weeks’ from today. 6. Let the parties appear before the High Court on 29.01.2026. 7. We request the High Court to dispose of the writ appeals expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. …………………………………………………...J. [PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA] …………………………………………………...J. [N.V. ANJARIA] NEW DELHI; JANUARY 12, 2026.
3 ITEM NO.53 COURT NO.16 SECTION XI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11505/2024 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-11-2023 in WA No. 1394/2023 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack] THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS BINAPANI PADHY Respondent(s) (IA No. 100328/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT WITH SLP(C) No. 11506/2024 (XI-A) IA FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 100190/2024 IA No. 100190/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT SLP(C) No. 11508/2024 (XI-A) IA FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 101579/2024 IA No. 101579/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT SLP(C) No. 11507/2024 (XI-A) IA FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 100415/2024 IA No. 100415/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT SLP(C) No. 8524/2024 (XI-A) FOR ADMISSION IA No.73974/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT Date : 12-01-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Advocate General Mr. Vishnu Kant, AOR Ms. Visakha Raghuram, Adv. Ms. Shikha Bharti, Adv.
4 Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Advocate General Ms. Pracheta Kar, AOR Ms. Visakha Raghuram, Adv. Ms. Sukanya Das, Adv. For Respondent(s) :Mr. Suman Tripathy, AOR Ms. Shruti Mishra, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. Leave granted. 2. The Civil Appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order which is placed on the file. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (LOKESH ARORA) (CHETNA BALOONI) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
ITEM NO.48 COURT NO.11 SECTION XI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8524/2024 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-10-2023 in WA No. 1069/2023 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack] THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS AYESHA TANWIR & ANR. Respondent(s) FOR ADMISSION IA No.73974/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT Date : 28-02-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Niranjan Sahu, AOR Ms. Shivangi Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mallika Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) :Mr. Suman Tripathy , AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s) that similar issues are arising in other connected matters. 2. Let this Special Leave Petition be posted along with SLP (C) Nos. 11505-11508 of 2024 and other connected matters. (KAPIL TANDON) (NIDHI WASON) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
ITEM NO.89 REGISTRAR COURT SECTION XI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MS. SUJATA SINGH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11505/2024 THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS BINAPANI PADHY Respondent(s) (IA No.100325/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.100328/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.100327/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ) WITH SLP(C) No. 11506/2024 (XI-A) ( IA No.100187/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.100190/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.100189/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) SLP(C) No. 11508/2024 (XI-A) ( IA No.101577/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.101579/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.101581/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) SLP(C) No. 11507/2024 (XI-A) ( IA No.100413/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.100415/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.100414/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Date : 04-10-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Suman Tripathy, AOR Ms. Shruti Mishra, Adv. Contd….
-2- Item no.89 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R All matters Sole respondent is granted four weeks’ time for filing counter affidavit. Registry thereafter to process the matters for listing before the Hon'ble Court as per rules as Hon’ble Court has directed to issue notice returnable in four weeks. SUJATA SINGH Registrar HJ
ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.2 SECTION XI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 8524/2024 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-10-2023 in WA No. 1069/2023 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack) THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS AYESHA TANWIR & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION IA No.73974/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 31-05-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN (VACATION BENCH) For Petitioner(s) Mr. Niranjan Sahu, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Suman Tripathy, AOR Ms. Shruti Mishra, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed, six weeks’ time is granted to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List the matter after eight weeks. (NIDHI AHUJA) (VIRENDER SINGH) AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER
1 ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.6 SECTION XI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 10181/2024 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-11-2023 in WA No.1394/2023 passed by the High Court Of Orissa At Cuttack) THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS BINAPANI PADHY Respondent(s) ( IA No.100325/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.100328/2024- EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.100327/2024- CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ) WITH Diary No(s). 9859/2024 (XI-A) ( IA No.100187/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.100190/2024- EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.100189/2024- CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Diary No(s). 10191/2024 (XI-A) ( IA No.100413/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.100415/2024- EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.100414/2024- CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Diary No(s). 10153/2024 (XI-A) ( IA No.101577/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.101579/2024- EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.101581/2024- CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Date : 03-05-2024 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. 2. Heard Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the State of Odisha. 3. The counsel submits that the direction by the learned Single judge for regularization of service of the respondents are wholly unmerited
2 inasmuch as the respondents were appointed as a Teacher Educator in DIET and this was contractual appointment co-terminus with the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Restructuring and Reorganization of Teacher Education or up to February, 2013 whichever is earlier. The counsel would then refer to Rule 3 of Odisha Group-B Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013 to contend that the benefit of regularisation is inapplicable for the above category of employees appointed under Centrally Sponsored Planned Scheme. 4. Although the above plea was specifically raised before the learned Single Judge, overlooking the same relief was granted for the respondents whose regularization according to Mr. Mohanty is unmerited on account of the nature of their contractual appointment, under the Centrally Sponsored Planned Scheme. 5. When the above was challenged by the State in the writ appeal, the Division Bench on the ground of delayed filing of the writ appeal, dismissed the said challenge under the impugned order dated 03.11.2023. 6. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. (DEEPAK JOSHI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1 ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.7 SECTION XI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).11337/2024 (Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 19-10-2023 in WA No.1069/2023 passed by the High Court Of Orissa At Cuttack) THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS AYESHA TANWIR & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.73973/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.73974/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ) Date : 05-04-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Umakant Mishra, Adv. Mr. Niranjan Sahu, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. 2. Heard Mr. Umakant Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. The counsel would refer to the petitioners’ appointment orders dated 14.02.2013 to point out that they were engaged on contractual basis in DIETs (District Institute for Education and Training), under the National Policy of Education. 4. Per contra the counsel refers to the Office Order dated 25.04.2013 (Annexure P-4) granting direct appointment to Teachers
2 educators on regular basis. The argument of Mr. Mishra is that the learned Single Judge of the High Court while ordering regularization of the two respondents, mistakenly considered them to be at par with those who were regularized on 18.10.2021. The specific argument of the State Counsel is that the source of the recruitment of the respondents and those who were regularized was entirely different. 5. However, the Division Bench did not consider the merit of the state’s challenge and rejected the State’s writ appeal only on the ground of delay, by placing reliance on State of Odisha and Ors. vs. Surama Manjari Das (SLP(C) No.6879/2023). The counsel argues that the Division Bench should have considered the merit of the State’s challenge. 6. The additional contention of the counsel is that the respondents did no have any right to continue their contractual service but continued on the strength of the interim order passed by the Court in an earlier writ petition and this information was not disclosed. 7. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. (DEEPAK JOSHI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR