Anup Kumar Senapati does not absolutely bar GIA claims; authorities must verify eligibility under the 1994 Order.

The appellant-Managing Committee challenged the order dated 25 November 2019 passed by the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in GIA Case No. 142 of 2018, whereby its claim for grant-in-aid under the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 was rejected.

During the appeal, it was admitted that the appellant’s case was covered by State of Odisha v. Ratnakar Mohapatra and Another, FAO No. 509 of 2014 and batch, decided on 19 March 2025, whose principles were affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 6943 of 2026 and batch, disposed of on 25 March 2026.

The High Court noted that there was no factual dispute regarding the matters recorded in the Tribunal’s order.

1. Whether the appellant’s claim for grant-in-aid under the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 could be rejected solely on the basis of the decisions in State of Orissa v. Lokanath Behere and the connected Supreme Court decision.

2. Whether the appellant’s eligibility was required to be verified by the competent State authority in accordance with the principles laid down in State of Odisha v. Ratnakar Mohapatra.

The Court applied the principles governing eligibility for grant-in-aid under the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994.

It relied on State of Odisha v. Ratnakar Mohapatra and Another, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 6943 of 2026 and batch, holding that State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati does not constitute an absolute bar to grant-in-aid claims.

Where employees and institutions are otherwise eligible under the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, and recommendations were made by the concerned Directorate before repeal of the Order in respect of unaided schools and other eligible institutions, the State authorities must verify the relevant facts and court orders and pass appropriate orders.

The competent authority retains discretion to undertake such verification and extend benefits subject to eligibility and compliance with the governing principles.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant’s claim by treating the decisions in Lokanath Behere as conclusively barring relief.

However, the subsequent decision in Ratnakar Mohapatra, affirmed by the Supreme Court, clarified that the relevant precedents did not impose an absolute prohibition and required the State to examine each claim on the basis of eligibility, prior recommendations, and the applicable grant-in-aid framework.

Since the appellant’s case was admitted to be covered by that decision and no factual dispute required adjudication by the High Court, the Court held that the claim ought to be reconsidered by the Director of Secondary Education rather than rejected outright by the Tribunal.

It directed the Director of Secondary Education, Government of Odisha, to verify the appellant’s case in light of the facts recorded in the Tribunal’s order and to extend the applicable benefit in accordance with the principles laid down in State of Odisha v. Ratnakar Mohapatra.

The exercise was directed to be completed preferably within four months from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and the Appeal Memorandum.