IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.509 of 2014 An appeal under Section-24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969.

………………

State of Odisha & Another …. Appellants -versus-

Ratnakar Mohapatra and Another …. Respondents FAO No.199 of 2018 State of Odisha & Others …. Appellants -versus-

M.C. of Panchayat High School, Bainchua …. Respondent FAO No.262 of 2010, FAO Nos.590 & 591 of 2015, FAO Nos.239 & 259 of 2016, FAO Nos.70, 84 & 371 of 2017, FAO Nos.14, 22, 23, 37, 74, 108, 143, 147, 154, 174, 180, 182, 195, 272, 368, 409, 418, 421, 432, 433, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 444, 479, 489, 501, 502, 503, 537, 538, 560, 650, 651, 773, 810, 866, 868, 882, 921 & 927 of 2018, FAO Nos.13, 14, 15, 26, 38, 52, 59, 63, 64, 68, 85, 87, 100, 190, 310, 318, 320, 321, 377, 393, 395, 451, 481, 492, 496, 499, 567, 701, 703, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710, 728, 754, 757, 761, 770, 775, 776, 780, 787, 1036, 1037 & 1038 of 2019, FAO Nos.58, 80, 319, 320, 321, 431, 491, 628, 641, 670, 684, 706, 707, 708, 720, 721, 722, 753, 754 & 756 of 2020, FAO Nos.13, 58, 79, 80, 152 & 181 of 2021, FAO Nos.417 &

517 of 2022 and FAO Nos.452, 459 & 595 of 2023.

For Appellants : Mr. A. Tripathy, Addl. Government Advocate For Respondents : Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate with D.N. Rath, Advocate Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate PRESENT:

THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing:14.11.2024 & Date of Judgment:19.03.2025

14.02.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. Since the issue in the present batch of appeals is with regard to entitlement of the employees working in different aided Educational Institutions to receive Grant-in-aid as admissible under GIA Order, 1994, all the appeals were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

3. While the claim of the employees of different aided Educational Institutions was allowed by the State Education Tribunal (In short “Tribunal”) in different GIA applications, in some of the cases the self-same Tribunal has rejected the claim. As and where such claim has been allowed by the Tribunal, State is the appellant and as and where such claim has been rejected, the employees concerned are before this Court in different appeals.

3.1. Since the core issue is with regard to entitlement of the employees to receive Grant-in-Aid under GIA Order, 1994, on the face of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anup Kumar Senapati reported in (2019) 19 SCC 626, this Court considering the respective stand taken in the appeals filed by the State and appeals filed by the aggrieved employees, frame the issue as to: “whether on the face of the judgment passed in the case of Anup Kumar Senapati, the employees concerned are entitled to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid under GIA Order, 1994.”

3.2. In the appeals filed by the State challenging the order passed by the Tribunal in allowing the claim of the concerned employees to get the benefit of Grant-in-aid under GIA Order, 1994, the main thrust of argument of the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate is the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha and Another Vrs. Anup Kumar Senapati and another reported in 2019 (19) SCC 626.

4. It is the main contention of the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate that in view of the decision rendered in the case of Anup Kumar Senapati as cited (supra), claim allowed by the Tribunal to extend the benefit of Grant-in-Aid under GIA Order, 1994 is not tenable in the eye of law. It is contended that since in all those cases where the Tribunal has allowed the claim, such a claim was raised after repealing of the GIA Order, 1994, in view of the decision in the case of Anup Kumar Senapati, the Tribunal should not have allowed the claim.

4.1. It is also contended that though decisio