JUDGMENT K.R. MOHAPATRA, J. - Both the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed assailing the order dated 03.06.2014 passed by learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 81(C) of 2007 quashing the order dated 30.11.2006 terminating Smt. Sanjukta Sahoo and directing to reinstate her in service forthwith with service benefits and including seniority. However, it is held that she would not be entitled for any financial benefit towards her salary and increments etc. except on notional basis for the period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement since she did not work for the said period. 2. The State of Odisha has filed W.P.(C) No. 3187 of 2017 assailing the direction to reinstate said Smt. Sanjukta Sahoo (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Concerned Teacher’ for convenience) with all service benefits. The Concerned Teacher has filed W.P.(C) No. 21489 of 2017 assailing the part of the order refusing actual financial benefit for the period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. 3. Both the writ petitions being filed against the same order and facts and point of law involved in both the writ petitions being similar, those are taken up together for hearing and final disposal. 4. Pursuant to the Government resolution No. 7373 dated 12.03.1996 in the School and Mass Education Department, recruitment to the post of Primary School Teacher was held in the year 1997 by Circle Level Selection Committee under the Chairmanship of Inspector of Schools, Jagatsinghpur Circile, Jagatsinghpur. The Concerned Teacher was a successful candidate in the said selection process being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Jagatsinghpur. However, the aforesaid selection process was challenged by some unsuccessful candidates before learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2792 (C) of 1999 and a batch of Original Applications, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 24.01.2001 with the following direction:- “ These applications are therefore disposed of with a direction that the select list category-wise be prepared afresh in accordance with the instructions then in force and the vacancies filed up in according to the placement of the candidates in respect of each category. However, appointment of any candidate who is facing investigation by vigilance should wait till the investigation is completed and the reports are available with the State Respondents. However, appointment of any candidate who is facing investigation by vigilance should wait till the investigation is completed and the reports are available with the State Respondents. The exercise of filling up the vacancies and indicated above be completed within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Till 31.5.2001 by which date it is expected that this procedure will be completed in all respects. The candidates who have already been appointed may continue in the respective posts purely on provisional and ad hoc basis.” 5. For non-compliance of the aforesaid order, a contempt proceeding bearing C.P. No. 382(C) 2001 was filed. Accordingly, the Circle Level Selection Committee convened a meeting on 13.03.2003 and prepared a fresh select list basing on the available records and submitted the same before learned Tribunal on 07.07.2003 in the contempt proceeding. Learned Tribunal vide its order dated 02.12.2004 in C.P. No. 382(C) of 2001 and a batch of contempt petitions arising out of O.A. No. 2792 (C) of 1999 further directed the Director of Elementary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to verify and approve the fresh select list prepared by the Inspector of Schools, Jagatsinghpur Circle, Jagatsinghpur after complying with the defects within a period of four months. Since the Director of Elementary Education, Odisha did not take any step to comply with the orders of learned Tribunal, O.A. No. 305 of 2005 was filed which was disposed of vide order dated 08.03.2006 with the following direction:- “I direct the Respondent No. 1 to call for the verified list from the Director, Elementary Education, Orissa, in respect of the re-select list of Tirtol Education District to which the applicant belongs, then approve the final select list after scrutiny on the basis of which appointment orders are to be issued and issue necessary direction to the Director, Elementary Education, Orissa to proceed with the issue of appointment letter with the specific instruction that if the applicant’s name appear in the approved list, then she be considered for appointment provided the vacant post are still to be filled up.” 6. Pursuant to the order of learned Tribunal, the Director of Elementary Education, Odisha vide his letter No. 5351 dated 03.05.2006 submitted the verified list of both education districts (Tirtol and Jagatsinghpur) for scrutiny. Pursuant to the order of learned Tribunal, the Director of Elementary Education, Odisha vide his letter No. 5351 dated 03.05.2006 submitted the verified list of both education districts (Tirtol and Jagatsinghpur) for scrutiny. After receiving the said list, the Government under the Chairmanship of Additional Secretary, School and Mass Education Department constituted a committee vide G.O. No. 10693 dated 16.05.2006 to scrutinize the verified list submitted by the Director of Elementary Education and approved the re-select list submitted by the Inspector of School, Jagatsinghpur Circle, Jagatsinghpur and directed the Director of Elementary Education, Odisha and Inspector of Schools, Jagatsinghpur Circle, Jagatsinghpur to take steps as detailed in the said order No. 22557 dated 17.11.2006 issued by School and Mass Education Department, relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder:- “1. The candidates who were appointed and their names do not find place in the present approved re-select list shall be disengaged immediately, excluding those who have obtained stay orders from the Hon’ble Court. The D.I. of Schools concerned shall obtain leave of the Hon’ble Court for termination of the such candidates. 2. The Candidates, whose names now find place in the approved re-select list as per their merit may be appointed against the 503 post of regular primary school teachers already filled up and persons are continuing against those posts as on date out of total notified 582 sanction post of regular primary school teaches. There is no freeze in recruitment of Primary School Teachers as per Finance Department austerity measures vide F.D. Circular No. 10954/F dt. 14.03.2001. The rest 79 unfilled post of regular primary school teachers, out of 582 notified vacancies, the same will be filled up by the candidates subsequently out of re-select with the concurrence of Finance Department under provisions of the Orissa Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2005. 3. That the Director, Elementary Education, Orissa/Inspector of Schools, Jagatsinghpur shall ensure filling up the posts under the reserved categories by the candidates belong to such categories strictly in accordance with the ORV Act and the instructions issued by the Government from time to time. 4. That the Director, Elementary Education, Orissa/Inspector of Schools, Jagatsinghpur shall take expeditous action to dispose of the cases of applicants in the following OA cases as per the order of the Hon’ble OAT on the basis of the approved re-select list on top priority basis. 4. That the Director, Elementary Education, Orissa/Inspector of Schools, Jagatsinghpur shall take expeditous action to dispose of the cases of applicants in the following OA cases as per the order of the Hon’ble OAT on the basis of the approved re-select list on top priority basis. i. OA No. 305/05 Smt. Sailasuta Dei ii. OA No. 436/06 Smt. Binodini Mohanty & 6 others. iii. OA 688/06 Nirupma Sahu & 14 others iv. OA 689/06 Bharati Swain & 7 others. v. CP 382 (C)/2001 (OA 2792 (C)/1999 Permalata Panda & others). 5. A copy of the approved re-select list duly signed by the Committee is annexed in respect of Jagatsinghpur and Tritol Education Districts for reference & necessary action.” 7. It is pertinent to mention here that pursuant to the resolution dated 12.03.1996 of the Government in School and Mass Education Department, the Concerned Teacher (Smt. Sanjukta Sahoo) was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Bakhrabad Primary School under Balikuda Block of Jagatsinghpur Education District on 21.07.1997 under SEBC category and she joined in her post on 18th August, 1997. She, however, faced termination vide order No. 4122 dated 30.11.2006 pursuant to the order dated 17.11.2006. 8. Assailing the same, the Concerned Teacher filed O.A. No. 81(C) of 2007 before learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. The Concerned Teacher took a specific stand that she being appointed as a regular Primary School Teacher and was continuing in the post as such, an order of termination simplicitor could have been passed on 30.11.2006 without following due procedure of law. It was further contended by her that the District Inspector of Schools, Jagatsinghpur before terminating her services had not followed the mandatory provisions of law. As such, her termination was illegal and liable to be quashed. 9. The Government of Odisha in School and Mass Education Department took a stand that the order of termination was a consequence of direction of learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 2792 (C) of 1999 and order of Government dated 17.11.2006. Further, upon receiving allegations about the selection process, the department of Vigilance enquired into the matter and submitted charge-sheet against the Concerned Teacher stating therein that she had submitted a forged marked sheet of H.S.C. Examination, 1986. Although she had secured 33 marks out of 700 marks, but the mark sheet submitted by he disclosed that she had secured 412 marks out of 700 marks. Although she had secured 33 marks out of 700 marks, but the mark sheet submitted by he disclosed that she had secured 412 marks out of 700 marks. Thus, her termination cannot be questioned in any Court of law and she should wait till finalization of the vigilance case as directed in O.A. No. 2792 (C) of 1999. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid impugned order, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 10. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel being assisted by Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the Concerned Teacher before learned Tribunal. He further submitted that she was awarded 117-74 marks by the selection committee taking into consideration the marks awarded to her in H.S.C. examination, C.T. Examination conducted by Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and via-a-voce test. Mr. Rath stoutly denied the allegation of filing any forged mark sheet of H.S.C. Examination by the Concerned Teacher. He, accordingly, submitted that the Concerned Teacher was awarded 117.74 marks by the selection committee taking into consideration the total marks of 353 awarded to the Concerned Teacher in H.S.C. Examination. The alleged forged mark sheet was never taken into consideration by the selection committee. He also contended that in similar circumstances, this Court quashed the termination of one Smt. Arati Mohapatra in W.P.(C) No. 22713 of 2014 and directed for her reinstatement although she had secured less marks than the Concerned Teacher in the selection test. As such, her services could not have been dispensed with without following mandatory provisions of law. Allegation of submitting forged mark sheet has not yet been proved in any Court of law. The vigilance case against her is still pending adjudication. Further, the Concerned Teacher was terminated without complying with the minimum requirement of compliance of natural justice. Learned Tribunal taking into consideration the aforesaid facts passed the impugned order issuing direction for reinstatement in service with all consequential service benefits. However, learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the termination order being ab initio void, the Concerned Teacher is entitled to the financial benefit. Hence, he prayed for a direction to release consequential financial benefit in favour of the Concerned Teacher. 11. Mr. However, learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the termination order being ab initio void, the Concerned Teacher is entitled to the financial benefit. Hence, he prayed for a direction to release consequential financial benefit in favour of the Concerned Teacher. 11. Mr. Rout, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department, on the other hand, reiterated the stand taken by the Government of Odisha in School and Mass Education Department before learned Tribunal and submitted that the Concerned Teacher was terminated from service pursuant to the direction of learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 2792(C) of 1999 as well as order dated 17.11.2006 issued by the Government in School and Mass Education Department. Apparently, the Concerned Teacher has committed fraud in furnishing forged H.S.C. mark sheet. It is immaterial as to whether the same has been utilized by the selection committee or not, because fraud unravels everything. Cognizance of offence has already been taken against the Concerned Teacher in the vigilance case pending before the competent Court of law. As such, a prima facie case of forgery has been made out against the Concerned Teacher. In the facts and circumstances of the case, giving opportunity of hearing would have been an empty formality. Hence, he contended that learned Tribunal should not have directed for reinstatement of the Concerned Teacher, when a criminal proceeding is pending against her. As such, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case records. The factual aspects narrated above are not disputed by learned counsel for the parties. Although Mr. Rath, stoutly denied the allegation of submitting forged mark sheet by the Concerned Teacher, but he could not substantiate his argument. He, however, submitted that had the alleged forged mark sheet been taken into consideration, the Concerned Teacher would have secured 126.16 marks in the selection test. The selection committee had only taken into consideration the H.S.C. mark sheet showing the Concerned Teacher to have secured 353 marks out of 700. Learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department, however, filed the copy of the application form of the Concerned Teacher along with its enclosures along with affidavit dated 31.01.2008 sworn in by the Deputy Director (Planning), Directorate of Elementary Education, Odisha. Learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department, however, filed the copy of the application form of the Concerned Teacher along with its enclosures along with affidavit dated 31.01.2008 sworn in by the Deputy Director (Planning), Directorate of Elementary Education, Odisha. The application form purportedly filled up in the hand writing of the Concerned Teacher, discloses that she had secured ‘412’ out of ‘700’ in the H.S.C. Examination. Further, the mark sheet of H.S.C Examination enclosed by her to the application form also discloses that she had secured ‘412’ in aggregate out of total marks of ‘700’. In view of the above, we are not in a position to accept the contention of Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel, more particularly in absence of any material in support of his case. Be that as it may, the matter is sub-judice before competent Court of law and cognizance has already been taken in the matter. However, after closure of hearing on 27.04.2018, Mr. Rath filed an affidavit along with certain documents including the original panel list of 1997, on 30.04.2018, which is taken on record. Said panel list disclosed that the Concerned Teacher had secured 117.74 marks in the selection test and on that basis, she was issued with appointment order. It appears therein that her name is at Sl. No. 256. The Concerned Teacher was issued with an appointment order on 21.07.1997 and she joined at Bakharabad primary School under Ballikuda Block on 18.08.1997. She continued as such till 30.11.2006. She had to face termination in the process of implementation of order passed in O.A. No. 2792 (C) of 1999, C.P. No. 382 (C) of 2001 and O.A. no. 30 OF 2005. She was terminated pursuant to order dated 17.11.2006 of the School and Mass Education Department, referred to above. Neither the order passed in the aforesaid proceedings before the Tribunal nor order dated 17.11.2006 has been challenged in any Court of law. Moreover, the Vigilance case is still pending against her. At such a juncture, direction for reinstatement of the Concerned Teacher is not at all justified. 13. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the Concerned Teacher took a stand that W.P.(C) No. 3187 of 2017 filed by the State of Odisha is hopelessly barred by time. Moreover, the Vigilance case is still pending against her. At such a juncture, direction for reinstatement of the Concerned Teacher is not at all justified. 13. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the Concerned Teacher took a stand that W.P.(C) No. 3187 of 2017 filed by the State of Odisha is hopelessly barred by time. We are unable to accept the said contention inasmuch as both the writ petition under consideration have been filed in the year 2017. Further, the State of Odisha in its writ petition has explained the delay in filing the writ petition. Since we have heard both the parties on merit at length after giving opportunity of hearing, the contention to the effect that W.P.(C) No. 3187 of 2017 filed by the State of Odisha is barred by time, loses its significance. The Concerned Teacher does not stand at par with Smt. Arati Mohapatra (the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 22713 of 2014), as no vigilance case is pending against her for adopting fraudulent method to get the appointment. 14. We are, therefore, unable to accept the conclusion arrived at by learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.06.2014 passed by learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 81(C) of 2007 stands quashed. Consequently, W.P.(C) No. 3187 OF 2017 filed by State of Odisha succeeds and W.P.(C) No. 21489 of 2017 stands dismissed. No costs. Ordered accordingly.