Location: OHC, Cuttack

Date: 29-Nov-2025 12:19:22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WP(C) No.11023 of 2021

(In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India)

Smt. Renubala Khuntia …. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha, represented through its Principal Secretary, School and Mass Education

Department and Others … Opposite Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner : Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Ms. B.L. Tripathy, ASC

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

25^th November, 2025

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. J. Biswal, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.

B.L. Tripathy, learned ASC for State – Opposite Parties.

2. An affidavit has been filed by the petitioner pursuant to order of

this court dated 1^st August, 2025 and the same is kept on record.

3. The petitioner who served as Assistant Teacher (T.G. Arts) in Nilakantheswar Vidya Pitha (N.K. Vidyapitha) in the district of

Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Nov-2025 12:19:22 Dhenkanal and retired on 30^th June, 2017, prays for notional benefits of promotion from the date her juniors were promoted and to consequentially give her pensionary benefits by quashing the impugned order under Annexure-10.

4. Admittedly the petitioner‟s service was approved vide order dated 30^th August, 2011 under Annexure-5 with effect from 7^th June, 1994 as Asst. Teacher in N.K. Vidyapitha. Initially there was dispute with regard to appointment of the petitioner as Additional Section Teacher in respect of class-VI of the school which was settled vide order dated 30^th August, 2011 under Annexure-5 approving her service in trained matric post with effect from 7^th June, 1994. Then the petitioner was promoted to S.E.S. T.G.(Arts) vide order dated

27^th September, 2014 under Annexure-6.

5. After her promotion in the year 2014 the petitioner approached learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal (as it was then) claiming promotion with effect from the date her juniors were promoted. However, she could not be able to pursue her case before the tribunal to logical end and ultimately filed WP(C) No.22231 of 2020 before this court, wherein this court in order dated 9^th September, 2020 directed the authority to take a decision on the representation of the Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Nov-2025 12:19:22 petitioner by passing appropriate order. Pursuant to said order dated 9^th September, 2020, the Director of Secondary Education vide his order dated 12^th January, 2021 rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that her service was approved in the year 2011 and thereafter she got the promotion in the year 2014.

6. Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the authority has approved service of the petitioner retrospectively with effect from 7^th June, 1994, her right accrued for promotion on the date her juniors were promoted. Moreover, the petitioner is not claiming any actual financial benefit in that respect but only notional benefits till date with consequential rise in the pension.

7. In the above background of facts, the question arose whether the petitioner is entitled to be promoted from the date her juniors got promotion after approval of her service retrospectively.

8. As per Annexure-5, the petitioner‟s service was approved on 30 ^th August, 2011 retrospectively in trained matric post with effect from 7^th June, 1994 and by then admittedly the juniors to the petitioner had already been promoted to the S.E.S. cadre. It is true that immediately after approval of her service in the year 2011 with Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Nov-2025 12:19:22 retrospective effect from 1994, she did not claim for any consequential service benefits till she got promotion to S.E.S. cadre vide order dated 29^th September, 2014. The order under Annexure-5 does not speak a word about granting any consequential service benefits in favour of the petitioner upon approval of her service retrospectively and the petitioner accepted the same till she got actual promotion i