Supreme Court Declines to Interfere with Orissa High Court's Grant-in-Aid Ruling
The Supreme Court has refused to intervene in a series of orders issued by the Orissa High Court, which granted eligibility for full grant-in-aid under the GIA Order of 1994 to employees of aided educational institutions. This decision represents a significant setback for the Odisha government, which had challenged the high court's rulings.
Bench Dismisses Special Leave Petitions
A two-judge bench of the apex court, comprising Justice J.K. Maheswari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, delivered an order on March 25, dismissing Special Leave Petitions arising from a batch of appeals. These appeals were filed by both the state government and private parties, contesting the high court's landmark judgment of March 19, 2025.
High Court's Landmark Judgment Upheld
In the pivotal high court decision, Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy ruled that unaided schools, girls' schools, higher secondary schools, and colleges could not be denied the benefits of the GIA Order, 1994, if their cases had been duly recommended by the concerned directorates prior to the repeal of the scheme. The GIA Order, 1994, originally provided for full salary grants to eligible teaching and non-teaching staff of private educational institutions. It was repealed on February 5, 2004, and replaced with a new order that limited the grant to partial assistance.
Supreme Court's Rationale and Directions
Justice Satapathy, while adjudicating over 100 appeals stemming from orders of the State Education Tribunal, upheld tribunal decisions that allowed grant-in-aid claims and overturned those that rejected such claims. He directed state authorities to extend the benefits under the 1994 order and complete the entire exercise within six months. The Supreme Court concurred with this approach, stating, "the direction as issued by the High Court is completely in consonance with the reasoning as specified therein," and noted that discretion had been appropriately left to the state to assess each case based on verification and relevant court orders.
Court's Stance on Previous Petitions
The Supreme Court emphasized that it was not inclined to adopt a different view, highlighting that "numerous Special Leave Petitions, more than approximately 60 in number... have already been dismissed" by it. Even after extensive hearings with Advocate General Pitambari Acharya representing the state, the court found no grounds to revisit its earlier position. Consequently, the appeals filed by the state were dismissed, while those filed by private individuals were disposed of with instructions to adhere to the High Court's framework.
Verification Deadline and Impact
Since the matters had been pending before the apex court, it further directed that the verification exercise be completed by the state within six months from the date of its order. This ruling brings closure to a protracted dispute and is expected to affect a substantial number of grant-in-aid claims across Odisha, providing relief to many employees in the educational sector.
