[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bhairaba Sahu & Anr vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 16 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.277 of 2018
Bhairaba Sahu & Anr. ..... Appellants
Represented by Adv. -
M/s.dillip Ku.mohapatra
-versus-
State of Orissa & Ors. ..... Respondents
Represented by Adv. -Mr.
C.M.Singh, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 16.03.2026
I.A. No.116 of 2026
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. This is an application filed at the instance of the Appellant for
condonation of delay in presentation of the FAO.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants as well as the learned
counsel for the State-Respondent.
4. On perusal of the stamp report, it appears that there exists a
delay in filing of the present FAO, however the exact number of days
of delay has not been calculated due to non-filing of certified copy of
the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2018 passed in G.I.A Case
No.29 of 2008.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellants at this juncture contended
that the certified copy of the order dated 26.02.2018 has already been
filed on 06.02.2026. Although the appeal was presented on
19.03.2018 challenging order dated 26.02.2018, however due to non-
filing of the certified copy of the impugned judgment the appeal was
not registered and the same was not taken up for admission. As such,
there exists long delay till filing of the certified copy of the impugned
order dated 26.02.2018. On perusal of the record, it appears that the
matter was initially listed on 18.06.2019. Thereafter, the same is
being listed for second time today.
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact that the matter was
not listed earlier by this Court and further considering the grounds
taken in the I.A. application for condonation of delay. This court is
inclined to condone the delay in the larger interest of justice since
failure to condone the delay would cause serious prejudice to
Petitioner. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the FAO is condoned
subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Orissa High Court Bar
Association Welfare Fund.
7. Accordingly, I.A. stands allowed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants as well as the learned
counsel for the Respondent-State.
9. Being aggrieved by impugned order dated 26.02.2018 at
Annexure-8 passed in G.I.A Case No.29 of 2008 by the learned State
Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, the Appellants have approached
this Court by filing the present appeal.
10. On perusal of the appeal memo, it appears that there are two
Appellants in the present appeal. They were Petitioner Nos.12 & 13
before the learned State Education Tribunal.
11. Initially, 13 Petitioners approached the learned State Education
Tribunal with a prayer under Section 24(B) of the Odisha Education
Act, 1969 challenging order dated 28.07.2004, whereby the
appointment of Applicant Nos.2 to 11 have been approved and the
block grant has been released w.e.f. 01.01.2004 instead of grant-in-
aid under the Orissa Education (Payment of Grant-in-Aid to High
Schools and Upper Primary Schools etc.) Order, 1994. The learned
Tribunal considered the case of the applicants before it and
eventually found that the Applicant Nos.12 & 13 have not filed their
order of approval of their appointment along with their G.I.A
application for adjudication by the State Education Tribunal.
Eventually, the learned State Education Tribunal, while allowing the
application in respect of the Applicant Nos.2 to 11 for grant of G.I.A,
dismissed the application in respect of Applicant Nos.12 & 13. The
learned Tribunal further directed the Opposite Party Nos.1, 2 & 3 to
modify the order of approval at Annexure-9 and to notionally fix the
pay of the Applicant Nos.2 to 11 in terms of the G.I.A order, 1994,
w.e.f. 01.06.1994 taking into consideration the date of their
appointment and the date of admissibility of the post within a period
of four months.
12. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the Appellants as well as
learned counsel for the State and on a close scrutiny of the impugned
order dated 26.02.2018 at Annexure-8, this Court observes that while
considering the case of Applicant Nos.2 to 11, the learned State
Education Tribunal, Odisha, dismissed the case of the Applicant
Nos.12 & 13, who are the Appellants in the present FAO. Learned
counsel appearing for the Appellants at the outset contended that
although the order of approval was produced before the learned
Tribunal, however the same was not considered by the Tribunal. In
course of hearing, learned counsel for the Appellants, drawing
attention of this Court to the orders at Anenxure-5 series dated
10.02.2009 and 28.05.2009 stated before this Court that the
appointment of the Appellants have already been approved by virtue
of the aforesaid order. However, the same has not been considered by
the learned State Education Tribunal while disposing of the G.I.A
case filed by the Appellants along with other similarly situated
persons. Though, the prayer in respect of Applicant Nos.2 to 11 was
allowed.
13. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
from the impugned order itself it is clear that the order of approval
was not produced before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the
G.I.A application. Thus, the Tribunal has not committed any
illegality rejecting the prayer of the present Appellants.
14. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the Appellants as well as the learned counsel
for the Respondent-State, this Court observes that the Appellants
along with the present FAO have filed the copies of their approval
order at Annexure-5 series. Moreover, while passing the order dated
26.02.2018 at Annexure-8, the learned Tribunal has allowed a similar
prayer in respect of similarly situated persons except the two
Appellants in the present appeal. Law is fairly well settled that the
persons who stand in a similar footing are to be treated equally which
is a mandate under the Constitution of India. Taking into
consideration the aforesaid fact, this Court is inclined to set aside the
impugned order dated 26.02.2018 so far it relates to the present
Appellants. Accordingly, the order dated 26.02.2018, so far as it
relates to the Appellants, is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is
remanded back to the learned State Educational Tribunal to consider
the case of the Appellants afresh keeping in view the order of
approval submitted by the Appellants along with a present appeal at
Anexure-5 to the appeal memo. Let the Appellants approach the
learned State Education Tribunal within three weeks from today
along with a copy of today's order. In such eventuality, the Tribunal
shall reconsider the case of the Appellants by taking into
consideration the order of approval at Anenxure-5 series and dispose
of such application within a period of three months from the date of
communication of a copy of today's order.
15. Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
