Managing Committee Of vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 12950 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           FAO No.409 of 2011

         Managing Committee of
         Panchayat High School,
         Ektali, Dhenkanal and Ors.          ....                Appellants
                                                   Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate

                                             -versus-

         State of Odisha and Others          ....               Respondents
                                                              State Counsel

                              COROM:
                  JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

                                    ORDER

18.10.2023 Order No

10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard Mr. M.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Appellants and learned State Counsel.

3. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment passed by the learned State Education Tribunal on 27.02.2010 in GIA Case No.113 of 2008 vide Annexure-

8.

4. It is contended that even though the Appellant's School as well as the other Appellants were eligible to get the benefit of Grant-in-aid in terms of GIA Order, 1994, but the same was never extended in their favour. In spite of the clear eligibility, they were extended with the benefit of Block Grant in terms of the letter issued by the then Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 01.06.2004 and consequential order passed by the then Inspector of Schools on 20.10.2004.

// 2 //

4.1. It is contended that since the School as well as the staffs of the School were eligible to get the benefit of Grant- in-Aid in term of the GIA Order, 1994, they approached the Tribuanl in G.IA Case No.113 of 2008. But the Tribunal without proper appreciation of the claim as well as the pleadings made in the application, rejected the same vide the impugned judgment dated 27.03.2010 under Annexure-

8. The Tribunal relying on the decision of this Court so passed in the case of Laxmidhar Pati and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Others, (1996) 1 OLR Page-154, held the appellants not entitled to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid in terms of the GIA Order, 1994.

4.2. It is however contended that the Appellants since were otherwise eligible to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid under GIA Order, 1994, the claim of the Appellants should not have been rejected by the Tribunal vide the impugned judgment on the ground indicated therein and it requires interference of this Court.

5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court so passed in the case of State of Odisha and Another Vrs. Anup Kumar Senapati and Another reported in (2019) 19 SCC 626, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate brought to the notice of this Court, more particularly Para-27 of the Judgment in the case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra). Basing on the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reflected in Para-27, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that after repealing of 1994 Grant-in- Aid Order vide notification dated 05.02.2004, no claim whatsoever under the GIA Order, 1994 is entertainable. The

// 3 //

view of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reflected in Para 27 of the judgment is quoted hereunder:-

<27. In our opinion, the prayer made to release grant-in-aid under the 1994 Order after its repeal was misconceived and would not be possible for any Government within the economic capacity to release the grant-in-aid retrospectively. Delay by itself defeats the right, if any, to claim the grant-in-aid which is dependent upon the option of the institution to apply for it. They may choose not to apply for the grant-in-aid as it comes with several riders as imposed by the Government.

Thus, original applications filed belatedly after the repeal of the 1994 Order, could not have been entertained at all and the employees filing the applications after repeal of the 1994 Order, cannot be said to be entitled for any relief owing to laches having slept over their right, if any, available under the 1994 Order.=

5.1. It is accordingly contended that in view of the clear finding of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra) no interference is called for with the impugned judgment so passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-8.

6. To the aforesaid submission of learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, learned counsel for the Appellants contended that at present and on similar issue some matters are still pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is excepted that favourable order will be passed in those cases.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made and placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anup Kumar Senpati (supra), this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned judgment so passed under Annexure-8 as the claim to get the benefit of grant-in-aid Order, 1994 has been raised after repealing of the order. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and dismiss the appeal.

// 4 //

7.1. However, it is observed that if some favourable orders as contended will be passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in any pending matter, the appellants will be at liberty to reiterate the claim in which case this court expresses no opinion.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Basudev

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication of order Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Oct-2023 09:32:40