Repeal of the GIA Order does not absolutely bar eligible claims supported by prior recommendations.

The appellant claimed the benefit of grant-in-aid under the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994.

The State Educational Tribunal, by order dated 6 November 2019 in GIA Case No. 22 of 2014, rejected the claim on the basis of State of Orissa v. Lokanath Behera, 2018 (II) ILR-CUT 535, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Civil Appeal No. 7299 of 2019, Lokanath Behera v. State of Odisha.

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, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 6943 of 2026 and batch, disposed of on 25 March 2026.

The appellant therefore challenged the Tribunal’s order and sought consideration of his entitlement under the applicable grant-in-aid principles.

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appellant’s claim for grant-in-aid under the GIA Order, 1994 solely on the basis of Lokanath Behera.

2. Whether the appellant’s claim was required to be verified and reconsidered by the competent State authority in light of State of Odisha v. Ratnakar Mohapatra and the principles affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Court applied the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, governing eligibility for grant-in-aid to educational institutions and employees.

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 constitute an absolute bar to grant-in-aid claims.

Where employees and institutions are otherwise eligible under the GIA Order, 1994, and recommendations were made by the concerned Directorate before repeal of the 1994 Order, the State authorities must undertake verification and pass appropriate orders after considering the relevant facts and prior judicial decisions.

The Court also distinguished the effect of Lokanath Behera by directing consideration in accordance with the later principles governing verification.

The High Court found that the appellant’s case was factually covered by Ratnakar Mohapatra, which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court had held that the earlier decisions did not impose a complete and absolute prohibition and that the State retained discretion to verify eligibility, the timing of Directorate recommendations, and the effect of the relevant judicial orders.

Since there was no factual dispute requiring dismissal at the threshold, the Tribunal’s rejection of the claim solely on the basis of Lokanath Behera could not stand.

The competent authority was therefore required to examine the appellant’s entitlement under the applicable principles and after due verification.

The Director of Higher Education, Odisha, was directed to verify the appellant’s case in light of the facts recorded by the Tribunal 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 High Court’s order and the appeal memorandum.