¬ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 12626/2013(From the judgement and order dated 27/08/2012 in WP(C) No.19849/2011, ofthe HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK)STATE OF ORISSA TH. SEC. & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSANJALI BARIK & ORS. Respondent(s)(With I.A. No.1 for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay inrefiling SLP)Date: 04/10/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Ashok Panigrahi,Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Sanket,Adv. Mr. Surajit Bhaduri,Adv. Ms. Deepika Kalia,Adv. for Ms. C.K. Sucharita,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra,Adv. Mr. H.P. Sahu,Adv. For Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. In spite of the order passed earlier that the State of Orissa will allow respondent No.1 to join her duty, she has not been allowed to join duty so far. That being so, we are not inclined to interfere. The special leave petition is dismissed. (A.S. BISHT) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
pITEM NO.31 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 12626/2013(From the judgement and order dated 27/08/2012 in WP(C) No.19849/2011 ofthe HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK)STATE OF ORISSA TH. SEC. & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSANJALI BARIK & ORS. Respondent(s)(With I.A. No.1 for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay inrefiling SLP)Date: 06/09/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Ashok Panigrahi,Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Surajit Bhaduri,Adv. for Ms. C.K. Sucharita,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. P.K. Mohapatra,Adv. Mr. H.P. Sahu,Adv. For Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Advocate states that he will be appearing for the petitioners in place of Ms. C.K. Sucharita and she has consented for the same. Mr. Panigrahi seeks time to file Vakalatnama. Four weeks' time is granted for filing Vakalatnama. We expect the State to allow respondent No.1 to join duty in the meanwhile. Counsel for the State will also take instructions with respect to the suggestions made the first paragraph of our order passed on 8th August, 2013. (A.S. BISHT) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
®ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 12626/2013(From the judgement and order dated 27/08/2012 in WP(C) No.19849/2011 ofthe HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK)STATE OF ORISSA TH. SEC. & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSANJALI BARIK & ORS. Respondent(s)(With I.A. No.1 for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay inrefiling SLP)Date: 08/08/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWARFor Petitioner(s) Ms. C.K. Sucharita,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. P.K. Mohapatra,Adv. Mr. H.P. Saho,Adv. For Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Ms. Sucharita, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by only the last part of the impugned order passed by the High Court, wherein the respondents No.1 is directed to be adjusted against the posts remaining vacant since 1996. Counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, submits that respondent No.1 is entitled to all the benefits from 1996. Ms. Sucharita will take instructions as to whether the petitioners are agreeable to treat the respondent as if she is in service from 1996 for the purpose of pay fixation and retirement benefits, though without any back-wages. 2. The matter is adjourned for four weeks to enable the counsel for the petitioners to take instructions. That part of the order wherein it has been directed that the respondent will be taken on duty, is to be implemented. (A.S. BISHT) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER