The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication 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- of Odisha, State through School Department and Others represented its Principal Secretary, and Mass Education … 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 25th November, 2025 B.P. Routray, J.
Legal Reasoning
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 1st 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 WP(C) No.11023 of 2021 Page 1 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Nov-2025 12:19:22 Dhenkanal and retired on 30th 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 30th August, 2011 under Annexure-5 with effect from 7th 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 30th August, 2011 under Annexure-5 approving her service in trained matric post with effect from 7th June, 1994. Then the petitioner was promoted to S.E.S. T.G.(Arts) vide order dated 27th 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 9th September, 2020 directed the authority to take a decision on the representation of the WP(C) No.11023 of 2021 Page 2 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Nov-2025 12:19:22 petitioner by passing appropriate order. Pursuant to said order dated 9th September, 2020, the Director of Secondary Education vide his order dated 12th 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 7th 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 30th August, 2011 retrospectively in trained matric post with effect from 7th 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 WP(C) No.11023 of 2021 Page 3 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication 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 29th 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 in the year 2014. Therefore what is apparent on record as per the narration of facts that non-grant of consequential service benefits in favour of the petitioner by virtue of approval of her service retrospectively, she did remain silent till the benefit of promotion was granted in her favour in the year 2014. 9. After the petitioner got promotional benefit in the year 2014 she raised her claim for retrospective promotion from the date her juniors were promoted. Thus the admitted position remains that when her juniors got promotion prior to 2011, the petitioner was not in existence to be considered for promotion. The entire claim of the petitioner to get retrospective promotion is based on retrospective approval of her service. When the fact is clear that on the date her juniors got promoted she was not in existence in service at that time, her claim to get retrospective promotion only by virtue of WP(C) No.11023 of 2021 Page 4 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Nov-2025 12:19:22 retrospective approval of her service would not make out a case in her favour to get such retrospective promotion. It is for the reason, first, that the petitioner without any objection accepted approval of her service vide order under Annexure-5 ignoring consequential service benefits granted in her favour. Such consequential service benefits claimed by her in the form of retrospective promotion after getting actual promotion in the year 2014 would not substantiate the case in her favour. Secondly, though the petitioner approached the tribunal for retrospective promotion but she did not pursue the same
Decision
till a logical end. She filed the writ petition in the year 2020 after her retirement on 30th June, 2017. Therefore her claim for consequential service benefits by way of promotion would not survive after her retirement. 10. It is true that in a case of continuous wrong like disparity in the salary or pension, the cause of action would continue to survive till the salary or pension is being received by the incumbent. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, (2022) 18 SCC 144, relying on the decisions in the case of Union of India and Others v. Tarsem WP(C) No.11023 of 2021 Page 5 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Nov-2025 12:19:22 Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 and Shiv Das v. Union of India and Others, (2007) 9 SCC 274 have held as follows:- “11. Relying upon the aforesaid ratio, this Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 while referring to the decision in Shiv Dass v. Union of India and Others, (2007) 9 SCC 274 quoted the following passages from the latter decision: “8...The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. xx xx xx 10. In the case of pension the cause of action actually continues from month to month. That, however, cannot be a ground to overlook delay in filing the petition. … If petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could be granted to a reasonable period of about three years.” WP(C) No.11023 of 2021 Page 6 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Nov-2025 12:19:22 In Tarsem Singh (supra), reference was also made to Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the following passage from Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare and Others v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan and Others, AIR 1959 SC 798 which had explained the concept of continuing wrong in the context of Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1908, corresponding to Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, observing that: “31...It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this connection, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury.” Accordingly, in Tarsem Singh (supra) it has been held that principles underlying „continuing wrongs‟ and „recurring/successive wrongs‟ have been applied to service law disputes. A „continuing wrong‟ refers to a single wrongful act which causes a continuing injury. „Recurring/successive wrongs‟ are those which occur periodically, each wrong giving rise to a distinct and separate cause of action. Having held so, this Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) had further elucidated some exceptions to the aforesaid rule in the following words: WP(C) No.11023 of 2021 Page 7 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Nov-2025 12:19:22 “To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.” 12. In Tarsem Singh (supra), the delay of 16 years in approaching the courts affected the consequential claim for arrears and thus, this Court set aside the direction to pay arrears WP(C) No.11023 of 2021 Page 8 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Nov-2025 12:19:22 for 16 years with interest. The Court restricted “the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser”. Further, the grant of interest on arrears was also denied.” 11. The present case at hand is not a case that there is a continuous disparity in the matter of pension given to the petitioner but it is a matter where the petitioner claims rise in pension by granting such notional financial benefit in her favour giving her promotion retrospectively. Thus basically it is a matter of retrospective promotion which cannot be terms as a continuous wrong. Therefore the claim of retrospective promotion of the petitioner on such date when she was not in existence in service at the time her juniors were promoted, cannot bring a fruitful purpose to succeed in her claim to be granted with benefits of retrospective promotion. The prayer made in the present writ petition for consequential rise in pensionary benefits is thus found without merit. 12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. M.K. Panda/P.A ( B.P. Routray) Judge WP(C) No.11023 of 2021 Page 9 of 9