M.C. of Herambanarayan High School Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

FAO No.129 of 2019

From the judgment dated judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed by the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in G.I.A. Case No.47 of 2018.

¶4

---- Managing Committee of …. Appellants Herambanarayan High School, Vikas Nagar, Dubalabeda & Others

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. State of Odisha & Others Respondents

¶7

Advocates Appeared in this case

¶8

For Appellants - Mr.J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate Mr.D.N. Rath (Advocate) For Respondents - Mr.U.C. Behera, Additional Government Advocate Mr.D.Mund Advocate for R.4. ---

¶9

CORAM

¶10

MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

¶11

¶12

Date of Hearing & Judgment : 11.09.2025

¶13

¶14

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J .

¶15

The appellants, being partially aggrieved by the State

¶16

Education Tribunal’s judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed in G.I.A.

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

Case No.47 of 2018, has presented this appeal under Section 24-B of the Odisha Education Act, 1969.

¶19

The operative portion of the Tribunal’s judgment reads as under:-

¶20

“The G,1.A. application is allowed. The order under Annexures-9 and 11 are set aside. The O.P.Nos.1,2 and 3 are directed to modify the orders of approval of the teaching and non-teaching staffs of the School under Annexure-6 series and notionally fix the pay of the teaching and non-teaching staffs of the School in terms of the Grant in Aid Order, 1994 from and after 1.6.1999 taking into consideration the date of their appointment and the date of admissibility of the respective posts within four months from the date of communication of this order. The O.P.Nos.1,2 and 3 are further directed to release the arrear differential salary in favour of the employees of the School w.e.f 1.1.2001 and 1.4.2005 as per the respective date of approval of the respective teaching and non-teaching staffs of the School within eight months from the date of communication of this order.”

¶21

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants vehemently argues that the Tribunal grossly fell in error in fixing 01.06.1999 to be the effective date for the benefit of Grant-in-Aid when it ought to have been 01.06.1994, wrongly applying the decision of the Apex Court in State of Odisha v. Managing Committee of Gadadhar Pradhan High School, Civil Appeal No.2466 of 2017 & batch disposed off on 06.02.2017, inasmuch as the said decision was confined to parties to the proceedings and that it was made on some concession.

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

3. Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents makes submission in justification of the impugned judgment stressing more on the observation of the Tribunal, which refers to the said Apex Court decision. He further contends that the Tribunal, in its accumulated expertise, having recorded a finding of fact, this Court may not readily interfere with the same.

¶24

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:-

¶25

4.1. The school was established way back in the year 1988 in educationally backward district and it had presented the first batch of its students for examination in 1991 are not in dispute. The Tribunal has specifically recorded a finding that twin conditions for getting the Grant-in-Aid, namely, the school, being in the backward district and presenting the first batch in 1991 are satisfied . Against this, no appeal is filed by the respondents and thus, the finding has attained finality.

¶26

4.2. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-school is justified in drawing attention of the Court to the Resolution dated 23.09.1981 of the Government of Odisha in the Department of Education & Youth Services whereby qualitative and quantitative requirement, namely pupil strength & result percentage have

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶28

been given up superseding the earlier resolution of the said Department dated 17.03.1979. Therefore, in terms of sub-Section3 of Section-11 of the Odisha Education Act, 1969, there is complete compliance, inasmuch even according to the Tribunal, the pupil strength although is stated to be below 25, is not said to be below 20. The school in question was approved vide notification dated 20.02.2004 for the purpose of Block Grant is also not disputed.

¶29

4.3. The bone of contention in the case is the effective date, namely, 01.06.1999 as the respondents asserting it and the appellants counter-stating it to be 01.06.1994. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is right in telling the Court that subject decision in Managing Committee of Gadadhar Pradhan High School Supra was structured on the basis of concession with specific observation in that the decision is not applicable to other pending cases, which have to be adjudged on their intrinsic merits. This aspect of the observation, having been lost sight of by the Tribunal, the wrong date is fixed to the detriment of the appellants.

¶30

In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed by the State Education Tribunal is modified re-fixing 01.06.1994 as the effective date for all practical purposes instead of 01.06.1999.

¶31

Page 4 of 5

¶32

Because of this alteration, the consequential benefits need to be extended restoring 01.06.1994 as the effective date. Time for compliance is eight (8) weeks, reckoned from this day.

¶33

Now, no cost.

¶34

Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶35

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶36

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 11^th Day of September, 2025/Basu

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 12-Sep-2025 11:43:45

¶39

Page 5 of 5

M.C. of Herambanarayan High School v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C. of Herambanarayan High School v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Benudhar Swain Vs State

Saktidhar Das Vs LIC of India

Dr.Laxmikanta Mishra Vs State of Orissa

Bibekananda Singh Vs State of Odisha

Dambaru Polai Vs State of Odisha

Srikanta Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha