Sadananda Pati Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

FAO No.826 of 2018

An application under Section 24-C of the Odisha Education Act, 1969

1) Sadananda Pati	.....	Appellants
2) Manash Ranjan Pani		Represented by Adv.–
3) Dibakar Sahoo 4) Bipin Bihari Das		Mr. Sushanta Kumar Mishra
5) Surendsra Ku.mishra
6) Purusottam Panda	-versus-
1) State Of Odisha		..... Respondents
2) Director,secondary Education		Represented by Adv.–
3) District Education Officer		Mr. S. Behera, AGA

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

¶7

Date of Hearing and Judgment: 05.03.2026

¶8

A.K. Mohapatra, J.:

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the Appellants as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the appeal memo as well as the prayer made therein. 2. By filing the present appeal under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, the Petitioners who was the Appellants before the Odisha State Education Tribunal in GIA Case No.452 of 2013 has approached this Court thereby challenging the final judgment/order dated 23.08.2018.

¶10

The factual background of the case as is borne out from the 3^rd paragraph of the appeal memo is quoted herein below.

¶11

Page 1 of 6.

¶12

_“3. That, Andhaipally High School at Village Andhaipally in the district of Bhadrak was established in the year 1983 and after established of the school, the recognition was sought for opening of Class -VIII and the Director of Secondary Education, Odisha in pursuance of the Education & Youth Service Department vide letter .No.44362 dtd.24.09.1983 accorded provisional recognition for opening of Class -VIII.The Director of Secondary Education vide Office order No.41031 dtd.i9.11.1983 intimated. about the said recognition of the school of Class -VIlI. Thereafter ,the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa /Cuttack vide order No.13861 dtd.24.12.1983 accorded recognition to the school for presenting its 15* batch of candidates in Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1984 and since then the school has been regularly presenting its candidates in the HSC Examination regularly without any interruption. It is pertinent to mention here that the school is only one High School in the Gram Panchayat having more than 6000 population. A copy of the Office order No.41031 dtd.19.11.1983 of the Director of Secondary Education, Odisha and order No.13861 dtd.24,12.1983 of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE- 1 & 2 respectively.”

¶13

Learned counsel for the Appellants at the outset contended that the Government of Odisha vide Resolution No.9760/SME dated 17.03.1979 introduced the principles of grant-in-aid to NonGovernment Aided High School. Such principles were modified from time to time vide different Government Resolutions. Accordingly, the appellants presented the candidature for the year, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 and became eligible to receive the minimum grant-in-aid from 01.03.1988, which is after four years from the date of presentation of the candidature as per the extant grant-in-aid rule. Since the Managing Committee members of the school did not release the grant-in-aid in favour of the Appellants

¶14

Page 2 of 6.

¶15

with effect from 01.03.1988, the Appellants approached the State Education Tribunal by filing the above noted GIA case.

¶16

The learned Tribunal disposed of the GIA Case No.452 of 2013 vide order dated 23.08.2018. On perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-11 it appears that the learned Tribunal has held that the school in question was established in the year 1983 and the first batch of students of the school appeared in the Annual High School Examination in the year 1984. Thus, the factual background of the Appellant’s case has not been disputed by the learned Tribunal while adjudicating the aforesaid G.I.A. case. However, the learned Tribunal has further held that the school in question was not receiving grant-in-aid prior to the grant-in-aid order 1994 came into force. The school is in receipt of the grant-in-aid only with effect from 01.06.1994 in terms of Para-7 of the aforesaid order. Further it appears that there exists an embargo with regard to payment of GIA in the order dated 01.06.1994. Accordingly, the relief claimed by the Appellants were denied and they have been allowed to get arrear salary with effect from 01.06.1994.

¶17

Being aggrieved by order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the learned State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar the Appellants have approached this Court by filing the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the Appellants at the outset contended that the very issue which is involved in the present appeal was directly and substantially in issue in the G.I.A. Case No.720 of 2012 before the very same State Education Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, vide a detailed judgment dated 20.10.2017, was pleased to order release of the grant-in-aid in favour of the Appellants with effect from 01.03.1988 in terms of the resolution of the Government dated 17.03.1979.

¶18

Page 3 of 6.

¶19

He further contended that the order passed by the Tribunal in G.I.A. Case No.720 of 2012 (in the matter of Rabinarayan Panda and others vs. State of Odisha and others ) was assailed before this Court by filing an FAO No.252 of 2018. Such FAO has been disposed of by a coordinate Bench vide judgment dated 18.09.2025, thereby upholding the order passed by the Tribunal on 20.10.2017. He further submitted that the order passed by this Court in FAO No.252 of 2018 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the Appellants further contended that in another identical matter, the State-Opposite Party went in appeal before the Hon’ble the Supreme Court by filing another appeal arising out of judgment dated 14.03.2018 in FAO No.147 of 2016, which is identical to the facts involved in the present FAO. The SLP preferred by the State, bearing Diary No.5483 of 2026 was listed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.02.2026 and was later dismissed on merit. Thus, the order passed in FAO No.147 of 2016 has attained finality after the State SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the State-Respondents on the other hand contended that the State Education Tribunal has not committed any illegality in rejecting the claim of the present Petitioner. He further submitted that such decision was taken on the basis of the legal position as well as the documents available at the time of hearing of the FAO in the year 2018. He further submitted that since the Appellant’s are claiming parity with similarly situated persons who have been extended with such and similar benefits in view of the order passed by this Court, as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he will have no objection if the Appellants are directed to approach the Government for reconsideration of their

¶21

Page 4 of 6.

¶22

claims. Accordingly, learned counsel for the State contended that the FAO is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed.

¶23

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record, further on a careful analysis of the orders/judgments produced before this Court for consideration, this Court found that in an identical matter the Tribunal has allowed the claims of certain Appellants for arrear salary with effect from 01.03.1988, whereas the claim of the present Appellants was rejected and such order passed by the Tribunal has attained finality and the same has been acted upon and benefits accruing from such order has already been disbursed in favour of the similarly situated persons. Moreover, in the identical matter the appeal preferred by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also been dismissed. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the principles of law applicable to the case of the present Appellants have been crystalized and the same has attained finality.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the impugned order at Annexure-11 dated 23.08.2018 passed in GIA No.452 of 2013 by the State Education Tribunal is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remitted back to the Respondent No.1 to consider the case of the Appellants in terms of the discussion made hereinabove as well as the judgments referred herein. Let the final decision be taken within a period of eight weeks. It is further directed that in the event the Respondent No.1 comes to a conclusion that the Appellants stand in a similar footing with the Appellants in FAO No.252 of 2018, decided vide judgment dated 12.11.2024, and in absence of any

¶25

Page 5 of 6.

¶26

other legal impediment, necessary consequential steps be taken to sanction and disburse identical benefits as is due and admissible in favour of the Appellants with effect from 01.03.1988, as has been done in the case of the similarly situated persons within the aforesaid stipulated time frame.

¶27

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the FAO stands allowed.

¶28

(A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶29

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 5^th March, 2026/S. K. Sethi, P.A.

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 07-Mar-2026 17:12:51

¶32

Page 6 of 6.

Sadananda Pati v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadananda Pati 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

Mangulu Kujur Vs State of Odisha

Jatindranath Palei Vs State of Odisha

Dr. Manoranjan Panda Vs Ms. Aswathy S., IAS

State of Orissa Vs Naba Krishna Mishra

Santosh Kumar Agarwal Vs Nanda Kishore Pradhan

Geetarani Dash @ Dixit Vs State of Odisha