The Supreme Court has held that work-charged employees are distinct from job contractors when it comes to pensionary entitlements under the Odisha Pension Rules 1992. Explaining the distinction between the work-charged employee and employees working on a job contract, the Court observed: There is a clear distinction between the employees who are in work-charged establishment vis a vis those who are in job contract establishment. The distinction becomes obvious from a bare perusal of sub-Rules 3 and 6 of Rule 18 of the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992 where it is given that work-charged employees who have worked in the establishment for a period of five years or more without interruption and are subsequently appointed to the same or another post in temporary or substantive capacity in a pensionable establishment, the period of service rendered by him/her in a work-charged establishment shall qualify for pension under the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992. Compare this with the provision relating to job contract establishment for whom it has been specifically stated that in case of a job contract employee, after he/she is brought in pensionable establishment, only that much period as job contract service shall be added to regular service as would make him qualify or eligible for pensionary benefits. Departing from the usual practice of rejecting time-barred pleas filed after excessive delay, the Supreme Court allowed the State of Odisha batch of belated petitions concerning the distribution of pensionary benefits to employees. Given the importance of the matter as the case affected many employees and had significant implications for the State Exchequer, the Court decided to condone the delay and examine the cases on their merits. It is not a case concerning a few employees, rather it affects a large number, and in turn, the State Exchequer. It is for this reason that we were persuaded to look into these matter(s), although initially, we were not inclined to interfere, considering the lethargic approach of the State in pursuing these matters, and the inordinate delay caused, which was never explained in any satisfactory manner. The State though kept filing one Special Leave Petition after another before this Court, not in one go but one after another, most of them belatedly, to complete a mere formality. For this reason, many of these petitions have been dismissed on the ground of delay itself as stated earlier, as Courts do not come to rescue those who sleep over their rights. Be it the State. The liability of the State on this issue will be addressed towards the end. Now, since we are taking up these matters, what will be the fate of the already dismissed petitions after our determination, we will address at the end.