JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J. The petitioner, who was working under the opposite party no.2, has filed this application assailing the order dated 1.8.2003 vide Annexure-1 declaring him unsuitable for the post of VAW and further claims for promotion to the post of VAW in accordance with the provisions of Pre-1993 Rules under which his juniors were considered for promotion and grant of all consequential benefits admissible in accordance with law. 2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the petitioner was engaged as a casual labourer in Gambharipalli Seeds Production Firm under the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology (hereinafter referred to as the ‘OUAT’) on 15.9.1979. Thereafter, the petitioner was retrenched from service on 19.6.1982. Challenging the said order of retrenchment, the petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar by filing I.D. Case No. 62 of 1983. After due adjudication, the learned Tribunal passed an award declaring the retrenchment of the petitioner as illegal and directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages with all service benefits. Challenging the said award, opposite parties approached this Court by filing OJC No. 344 of 1985, which was dismissed on 13.3.1991. Against the said order of this Court, the opposite parties filed S.L.P. (Civil) No. 13316 of 1991 before the apex Court, which was also dismissed. Consequentially, the petitioner was reinstated in service, but he was not extended with the benefits admissible to the post by giving due promotion. As a result, the petitioner approached this Court by filing OJC No. 14570 of 1997 seeking for promotion to the post of VAW, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.2.2001 with a direction to the opposite party no.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion and if he is found suitable for being promoted, such promotion order shall be given effect from the date his juniors were promoted. The order of this Court dated 16.2.2001 was not complied with, therefore the petitioner approached this Court by filing contempt application bearing Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 54 of 2002 and while such contempt proceeding was pending, the opposite parties issued a letter to the petitioner on 9.5.2003 to appear before the selection committee on 21.5.2003 for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of VAW. Case No. 54 of 2002 and while such contempt proceeding was pending, the opposite parties issued a letter to the petitioner on 9.5.2003 to appear before the selection committee on 21.5.2003 for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of VAW. Thereafter, the opposite parties vide letter dated 1.8.2003 under Annexure-1 communicated the petitioner that he is not found suitable for selection to the post of VAW and his case for promotion was rejected as he could not qualify in the written test and satisfy the statutory requirement of swimming. It is stated that though the petitioner possesses requisite qualification and seniority for promotion to the post of VAW, the opposite parties without considering the same in proper perspective have denied him promotion to the said post though his juniors like Santosh Nayak, Ramakanta Pradhan, Jay Krushna Behera, Fagu Chand and Brajabandhu Chand were promoted to the post of F.M.D. (T) without inviting any application or conducting any interview during the period from 22.1.1980 to 13.3.1981. Hence, this application. 3. Ms. Madhumita Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the petitioner should have been considered on the basis of the Rule, regulation and guidelines available prior to commencement VAW Rules, 1993 and when his juniors have been considered for promotion instead of considering the case of the petitioner in accordance with Pre-1993 Rules have declared him unsuitable which is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory one. Therefore, this Court should interfere with the same and the petitioner should be extended with the benefits of promotion from the date his juniors have been promoted with all consequential benefits as per the Pre-1993 Rules. In order to substantiate her contention, she relied upon the judgments in Y.V. Rangaiah and others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others, AIR 1983 SC 852 , State of Kerala and others, E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, AIR 2007 SC 2645 and State of U.P. and others v. Dr. B.B.S. Rathore, Civil Appeal No.3041 of 2010 with other connected matters, disposed of on 24.7.2014. 4. Mr. Ashok Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties, strenuously urged that the petitioner prepared a comparative table showing the placement of his juniors who were appointed as Literate Labourer and subsequently regularized/appointed as Field Man Demonstrator (Trainee) FMD (T) in the year 1980 and promoted to Village Agriculture Worker (VAW) in the year 1986. 4. Mr. Ashok Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties, strenuously urged that the petitioner prepared a comparative table showing the placement of his juniors who were appointed as Literate Labourer and subsequently regularized/appointed as Field Man Demonstrator (Trainee) FMD (T) in the year 1980 and promoted to Village Agriculture Worker (VAW) in the year 1986. It is stated that after the direction of this Court, the petitioner was regularized as permanent labourer on 11.7.1995 and promoted to the post of Laboratory Attendant on 6.12.2006 and in the meantime, the petitioner as well as the so called juniors to the petitioner against whom the petitioner claims benefits have already been superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage and accordingly he seeks for dismissal of the writ application. 5. It is the admitted fact that the petitioner was engaged as a casual labourer initially on 15.9.1979 and was retrenched from service on 19.6.1982. Against such order of illegal retrenchment, the petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal by filing I.D. Case No. 62 of 1983 and after due adjudication, the learned Tribunal declared the retrenchment of the petitioner illegal and directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages. Against such order of the learned Tribunal, the opposite parties preferred writ application before this Court by filing OJC No. 344 of 1985, which was dismissed on 13.3.1991. Against the order passed by this Court, the opposite parties preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No. 13316 of 1991 before the apex Court, which was also dismissed. Consequentially the retrenchment of the petitioner having been declared illegal, he is entitled to get continuity in service, meaning thereby, the retrenchment made on 19.6.1982 being illegal, the petitioner is deemed to be continuing in service w.e.f. 15.9.1979. Once the petitioner continued in service, question arises for consideration why he has not been given promotion as mentioned in paragraph-15 of the writ petition. There is no dispute that the persons named in paragraph-15 have been given promotion by the opposite parties to the post of F.M.D. (T) without inviting any application or conducting any interview during the period from 22.1.1980 to 13.3.1981. There is no dispute that the persons named in paragraph-15 have been given promotion by the opposite parties to the post of F.M.D. (T) without inviting any application or conducting any interview during the period from 22.1.1980 to 13.3.1981. Therefore, petitioner having continued in service, he should have also been considered for such promotion along with his co-workers, those who have already got promotion during the period mentioned i.e. 22.01.1980 to 13.03.1981. Thereafter, the petitioner filed OJC No. 5163 of 1993 seeking for regularization of service with consequential benefits. Despite dismissal of the SLP by the apex Court since the petitioner was not regularized, this Court vide order dated 12.12.1994 directed the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption against the cadre post in Class-IV on regular basis after finding out his suitability to hold the post in question. Consequentially he was called upon to appear before the committee for selection on 3.7.1995 and the petitioner appeared before the committee and having been found suitable for regularization, he was regularized in the post of watchman and permanent labourer vide order dated 10.7.1995 and he joined on 11.7.1995. The extension of benefit of regularization w.e.f. 10.7.1995 is contrary to the finding of the learned Industrial Tribunal, which has been confirmed by this Court as well as by the apex Court. Once the order of retrenchment has been declared llegal, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. Therefore, regularization of services of the petitioner w.e.f. 10.7.1995 is contrary to the finding of the learned Tribunal. But at this point of time, since the petitioner was deprived of getting promotion, he approached this Court once again by filing OJC No. 14570 of 1997 and this Court vide order 16.2.2001 directed the opposite party no.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion taking recourse to VAW Rules, 1993. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner’s case was considered and he was found unsuitable vide impugned order Annexure-1, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 6. Once the retrenchment of the petitioner is declared as illegal, which has been upheld by the apex Court, he is entitled to continuity in service. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner’s case was considered and he was found unsuitable vide impugned order Annexure-1, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 6. Once the retrenchment of the petitioner is declared as illegal, which has been upheld by the apex Court, he is entitled to continuity in service. Therefore the authority should have given him the benefit of the seniority and consequential benefits of promotion at par with his juniors, those who have already got promotion prior to the impugned order was passed by the authority. Non-consideration of the case of the petitioner at due time and consideration of the same subsequently with reference to the prevailing rules and declaring him unsuitable cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 7. In Y.V. Rangaiah and others (supra), the apex Court held that the vacancies which occurred prior to coming into force of the amended rules would be governed by old rules and not by amended rules. Therefore, applying the said principle to the present context, if the petitioner’s retrenchment has been held to be illegal and as a result of which he got continuity in service, his case should be considered on the basis of rules which were in force when his juniors were considered for promotion and not by virtue of the VAW Rules, 1993, which come to existence much after the promotion of his juniors. Therefore, declaring the petitioner unsuitable in accordance with the subsequent Rules, 1993 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 1.8.2003 vide Annexure-1 has been passed contrary to the provisions of law. Accordingly, the same can not be sustained in the eye of law. Consequentially, the impugned order dated 1.8.2003 vide Annexure-1 is hereby quashed. It is directed that the petitioner is entitled to get consequential service benefits at par with his juniors those who have already got promotion much prior to the petitioner. As the petitioner was denied promotion erroneously, the same should be given to him with retrospective effect from the date his juniors were promoted. It is directed that the petitioner is entitled to get consequential service benefits at par with his juniors those who have already got promotion much prior to the petitioner. As the petitioner was denied promotion erroneously, the same should be given to him with retrospective effect from the date his juniors were promoted. As in the meantime the petitioner has already superannuated from service, he cannot hold the promotional post for all practical purpose, but he should be promoted with retrospective effect from the date his juniors have been promoted and his salary in the promotional post should be fixed accordingly. The petitioner should be given monetary benefit on account of such retrospective promotion from the date he approached this Court by filing the present writ petition in view of the ratio decided by the apex Court in State of Kerala and others mentioned (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 9. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there is no order to costs.