[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dillip Kumar Panda vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 9 February, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.452 of 2025
Dillip Kumar Panda ..... Appellant
Represented by Adv. -
Sudhanshu Sekhar
Pratap
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Respondents
Represented by Adv. -
U.C. Jena, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
09.02.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. On the prayer of learned counsel for the Appellant, he is
permitted to add the learned State Education Tribunal represented
through its Secretary, Bhubaneswar as Respondent No.4 to the
appeal. Let the corrected copy of the cause title be filed by
11.02.2026.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned
counsel for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset contended
that being aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the
learned State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in GIA
Case No.106 of 2023, the Appellant has approached this Court by
filing the present appeal. He further contended that by virtue of the
impugned order dated 24.07.2025, the learned Tribunal relying
upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.7295 of 2019 arising out of SLP(C) No.8343 of 2019 in
the case of State of Odisha & Another vs. Anup Kumar Senapati
& Another disposed of on 16.09.2019 has declined to entertain the
claim of the appellant at the threshold. The order further reveals
that the GIA Case has not been admitted and the same has been
rejected entirely basing upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Anup Kumar Senapati's case (supra).
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant at this juncture contended
that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in State of Odisha &
Another vs. Ratnakar Mohapatra and Another in FAO No.509 of
2014 along with a batch of similar other appeals disposed of vide
judgment dated 19.03.2025 has elaborately discussed the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anup Kumar Senapati's case
(supra). Finally, the Coordinate Bench has been pleased to quash
the impugned judgment wherein the claim of the concerned
employees/ institution has been rejected by the learned Tribunal
and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal subject to the
verification as has been directed to be made by the authorities. The
State authorities were specifically directed to verify as to whether
prior to repealing of grant-in-aid order, 1994, which was notified in
the gazette dated 05.02.2024, the claim of the employees and/ or of
the institution was recommended by the concerned directorate. The
State authorities have also been directed to take into consideration
the benefit of grant-in-aid under GIA order, 1994 extended after
dismissal of the appeal filed by the State in FAO No.949 of 2019
and FAO No.602 of 2019. So also the order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in review as well as in on a curative petition in the
case of in Anup Kumar Senapati (supra) with regard to extension
of the benefit under GIA order, 1994. A further direction has been
given subject to such verification and appreciation of the orders
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Tribunal shall
pass appropriate order extending the benefit under GIA Order,
1994 in favour of the eligible employees/ institutions.
6. The aforesaid judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case
of Ratnakar Mohapatra (supra), which was assailed before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State-Opposite Parties by filing
SLP (Civil) Diary No.71468 of 2025, is stated at bar to be still
pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for adjudication.
However, in the meantime some of the judgments which were
delivered relying upon the judgment in Ratnakar Mohapatra's
case (supra) were assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by
the State in SLP (Civil) Diary No.71468 of 2025 and a batch of
similar other applications have been disposed of vide order dated
23.01.2026 thereby dismissing the State's SLP on merit. As such,
learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the principle laid
down in Ratnakar Mohapatra's case (supra) by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court has attained finality. In such view of the
matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the
rejection of the Petitioner's appeal, by not admitting such claim at
the threshold, learned State Education Tribunal has committed a
gross illegality and such order is contrary to the judgment of this
Court in Ratnakar Mohapatra's case (supra).
7. In view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the
State sought for some time to obtain instruction.
8. Considering such submissions, the learned counsel for the
State is granted three weeks' time to obtain instruction in the
matter.
9. Issue notice to the newly added Respondent No.4 by speed
post with A.D fixing a short returnable date. Requisites be filed
within three working days.
10. List this matter in the week commencing 16.03.2026.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 11-Feb-2026 10:17:05
