Anup Kumar Senapati is not an absolute bar to otherwise eligible Grant-in-Aid claims.

The appellant challenged the order dated 20 September 2019 passed by the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in GIA Case No. 170 of 2015, whereby his claim for grant-in-aid under the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 was rejected.

The Tribunal relied on State of Orissa v. Lokanath Behera, 2018 (II) ILR-CUT 535, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Civil Appeal No. 7299 of 2019, which had rejected a similar claim.

Before the High Court, it was admitted that the appellant’s case was covered by State of Odisha v. Ratnakar Mohapatra, 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 on 25 March 2026.

The High Court also recorded that there was no factual dispute requiring adjudication and that the matter had to be considered by the Director of Higher Education.

Whether the appellant’s claim for grant-in-aid under the GIA Order, 1994 could be rejected solely on the basis of Lokanath Behera and the related Supreme Court decision.

Whether, in light of Ratnakar Mohapatra, the appellant was entitled to have his eligibility and claim verified by the competent State authority, particularly where the relevant recommendations had allegedly been made before repeal of the GIA Order, 1994.

Whether the Tribunal’s order dated 20 September 2019 was liable to be quashed and reconsidered by the Director of Higher Education.

The Court applied the principles governing entitlement to grant-in-aid under the GIA Order, 1994.

It relied on State of Odisha v. Ratnakar Mohapatra, FAO No. 509 of 2014 and batch, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 6943 of 2026 and batch, for the principle that State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati does not create an absolute bar against grant-in-aid claims.

Eligible employees and institutions must be considered where the statutory and factual requirements are otherwise satisfied, including cases in which recommendations were made by the concerned Directorate before repeal of the GIA Order, 1994; the State authorities must verify the relevant facts and pass appropriate orders.

The Court further relied on the principle that prior judicial decisions rejecting similar claims do not dispense with the State’s obligation to undertake case-specific verification.

Since the parties admitted that the appellant’s case was covered by the principles laid down in Ratnakar Mohapatra, the Court held that the Tribunal’s reliance on Lokanath Behera could not conclusively defeat the claim.

The governing approach required verification of the appellant’s eligibility, the relevant recommendations, and compliance with the applicable requirements of the GIA Order, 1994, rather than summary rejection on the basis of an alleged absolute legal bar.

As no factual dispute required determination by the High Court, the appropriate course was to remit the matter to the Director of Higher Education for consideration in accordance with the principles affirmed in Ratnakar Mohapatra.

It directed the Director of Higher 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.