JUDGMENT D. Dash, J. 1. In this appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 08.03.2016 passed by the learned State Education Tribunal in G.I.A. No. Case No. 216 of 2013 holding the respondents who are the teaching & non-teaching staff of Bharati High School, Kankili in the district of Angul as being entitled to their salary component as per the Grant-In-Aid Order, 1994 with effect from 01.06.1994. The parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned before the Tribunal. 2. Facts essential for the purpose of this appeal may be stated hereunder:- Bharati High School, Kankili in the district of Angul has been established since the year 1987, followed by the recognition from the Board of Secondary Education Orissa for opening of class VIII during academic session 1988-89 and thereafter for class IX and X. First batch of students of the school have appeared in the Annual High School Examination in the year 1991. After coming into force of the Grant-In-Aid Order, 1994, pursuant to the incorporation of the provision of section 7C for Orissa Education Act, 1969 by Orissa Education Amendment Act, 1994, on being asked, the managing committee of the school in accordance with the provision in the said Order submitted the proposal to the Inspector for release of grant-in-aid as per GIA Order 1994. Since no action was taken on that, it is stated that several representations had been made before opposite party No. 1 and 2. It is further stated that although some similarly situated schools were sanctioned with the grant-in-aid in terms of GIA Order, 1994, yet the case of the applicants who are the staffs of the concerned school did not find favour with. However, after coming into force of Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 the appointment of the applicants No. 1 to 9 were approved under GIA Order, 2004 and those of applicant Nos. 10 and 11 were approved under GIA Amendment Order, 2008. The applicants then had filed GIA Case No. 108 of 2008. However, without adjudication, the Tribunal had disposed of the case for proper examination by the opposite parties. Finally the claim having been rejected, the applicants moved the Tribunal again. 3. The opposite parties in their counter state that the claim has been rejected basing on the report of opposite party No. 2. The reason is that the first batch of students appeared in Annual H.S.C. Exam. Finally the claim having been rejected, the applicants moved the Tribunal again. 3. The opposite parties in their counter state that the claim has been rejected basing on the report of opposite party No. 2. The reason is that the first batch of students appeared in Annual H.S.C. Exam. in the year 1991 and in the year 1991, 1992 and 1993 out of 40, 40 and 50 students, 10, 18 and 23 students have passed out which falls below the State average. It is further stated that the school is not fulfilling the eligibility criteria under GIA Order, 1994. 4. The Tribunal has negatived the objection raised by the State and considering the claim of the applicants, in view of the position of law set at rest by the decision of this Court has finally passed the order which runs as under:- "That, this Grant in Aid application is allowed on contest against the O.Ps, but without any costs. The O.P. Nos. 1 and 3 are directed to notify the Institution of the applicants as an Aided Educational Institution as per Grant in Aid Order, 1994 and also approve the appointment of the applicants and release grant-in-aid in their favour as per their eligibility in accordance with the said Grant in Aid Order, 1994 together with the differential admissible salary component within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order." 5. In this appeal, the following grounds have been raised in support of the prayer of setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal as above noted:- A. For that impugned order passed by the State Education Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar is unjust, illegal contrary to the material available on record and liable to be set aside. B. For that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts and law involved in the list in its proper perspective. C. For that the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the provision of Section 7C(1) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 which clearly states that the State Government shall within the limits of its economic capacity, set apart a sum of money annually for being given as grant-in-aid to Private Educational Institution in the State, which clearly reveals that the Government is not bound to provide grant-in-aid to any private educational institution on merely attaining/acquiring the eligibility. D. For that the learned Tribunal has also failed to appreciate the provisions under Section 7(C)(4) of the Orissa Education Act wherein it has been provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any law, rule executive order or any judgment, decree or order any Court, no grant-in-aid shall be paid and no payment towards salary costs or any other expenses shall be made to any private educational institution or for any post or to any person employed in any such institution after the commencement of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994, except in accordance with an order or rule made under this Act. Grant-in-aid where admissible from such date as may be specified in that rule or order or from such date as may be specified in that rule or order or from such date as may be determined by the State Government. E. For that the learned Tribunal also did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 7D (ii) of the Orissa Education act, 1969 wherein it has been provided that the percentage of students passing the Annual and Supplementary examinations conducted by the Board of Secondary Education or the Council of Higher Secondary Education or the concerned University, as the case may be, falls short of half of the percentage of students passing such examination for the entire Board or the Council or the University, as the case may be, for three consecutive years will face withdrawal of grant-in-aid. F. For that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that as per the requirement of the statute every educational institution has to satisfy the Section 7D(ii) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 wherein it has been provided that the percentage of students passing the Annual and Supplementary examinations conducted by the Board of Secondary Education or the Council of Higher Secondary Education or the concerned University, as the case may be, falls short of half of the percentage of students passing such examination for the entire Board or the Council or the University, as the case may be, for three consecutive years. xxx xxx xxx G. For that the learned Tribunal relied upon the Resolution dated 23.09.1981 of the erstwhile Education and Youth Services Department, wherein it has been provided that after receiving some representations from various quarters for rescinding the qualitative and quantitative criteria in the aforesaid resolution, the Government have been pleased to decide that the grant in aid to non Government Aided High Schools need not be subject to qualitative and quantitative assessment of the school performance for the present, the above said resolution was given effect to from 1st April, 1979, but learned Tribunal has failed to take judicial notice of Section 7D (ii) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, which is a statutory provision which was inserted by way of an amendment in the year 1994 and after coming into force of Section 7D(ii) of the Orissa Education Act, the earlier Resolution dtd. 23.09.1981 of the erstwhile Education and Youth Services Department loses its force and as per the provision of Section 7D(ii) the percentage of students passing the Annul and Supplementary examinations conducted by the Board of Secondary Education or the Council of Higher Secondary Education or the concerned University, as the case may be, falls short of half of the percentage of students passing such examination for the entire Board then grant in aid already granted in favour of such institutions which are not satisfying the above said eligibility, cannot also claim grant in aid. H. For that the learned Tribunal did not deal with the contentions made by the present appellants in the counter affidavit in the GIA case and disposed of the GIA case allowing the claim of the present respondents which is not sustainable in the eye of law. I. For that the learned State Education Tribunal committed an apparent error by entertaining the prayer made in the GIA case wherein relief was sought for under the Orissa Education (Payment of Grand-in-Aid to the High schools and Upper Primary Schools), Order, 1994 which was repealed since long w.e.f. 05.02.2004 and the present respondent approached the State Education Tribunal after a long gap of seven years, i.e., in the year 2011 and the learned Tribunal directed the opposite parties therein to grant of benefits to the applicant therein under a repealed law which is not sustainable in the eye of law. J. For that the learned Tribunal also failed to appreciate that when grant-in-aid was received in favour of the petitioner's institution after amendment of the Orissa Education (Payment of Grant-in-Aid to the High Schools and Upper Primary Schools) Order, 2004 as amended on 22.09.2007 and they accepted the said grant-in-aid without any objection or allegation and raising a claim after a period of 4 years, should have been dismissed by the learned Tribunal on the ground of inordinate delay and on the principle of waiver and acquiescence. K. Xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx L. Xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx M. Xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx N. For that the learned Tribunal relied upon the ratio decided in the case of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo Vrs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2003(I) OLR-91 erroneously the facts in the case of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo are not similar to the facts in the present case on the following reasons: (i) That Prafulla Kumar Sahoo was working in an institution which has already been notified by the State Government and his post was approved and grant-in-aid was released in his favour with effect from 01.06.1991 and he had filed his case for approval of his promotion against the post of Junior Librarian but in this instant case the institution has filed its case for notification as an aided educational institution. (ii) That while the case was decided the judgment was pronounced GIA Order 1994 was in force and he was claiming grant-in-aid as per that order but in this instant case, the Orissa Education (Payment of GIA to High Schools and Upper Primary Schools) Order 1994 has already been repealed under which the applicant is now claiming GIA. (iii) That said Prafulla Kumar Sahoo was an employee of a college and his service has been regulated by the Odisha (Non-Govt. College, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) GIA Order 1994 and the same has been taken into consideration when the judgment was passed. But in this instant case, the said order is not applicable to the Schools. On the other hand, the institution has filed case to notify as per GIA order called Orissa Education (Payment of G.I.A. to High Schools and Upper Primary Schools) Order, 1994. (iv) That Prafulla Kumar Sahoo had filed its case challenging the rejection order dated 09.08.2000 in which the State Govt. On the other hand, the institution has filed case to notify as per GIA order called Orissa Education (Payment of G.I.A. to High Schools and Upper Primary Schools) Order, 1994. (iv) That Prafulla Kumar Sahoo had filed its case challenging the rejection order dated 09.08.2000 in which the State Govt. was pleased to reject his claim on the ground of financial ban. But in this instant case the applicant's institution has filed its case to notify the institution as per the GIA Order 1994 after more than 14 years. O. xxx xxx xxx xxx P. xxx xxx xxx xxx" 6. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department and learned counsel for the respondent-claimants. I have gone through the order of the tribunal. 7. By Government resolution dated 17.03.1979, it was kept as an eligibility criteria that the result of the school must be 15 percent above the State average in Annual H.S.C. Exam. for a period of four years continuously. However there has been another resolution on 23.09.1981 that the GIA to Non-Govt. Aided High Schools need not be subject to qualitative and quantitative assessment of the school performance for the present. This has been in force with effect from 01.04.1979. In view of this position, the Tribunal having found the ground of rejection of the claim of the applicants as untenable, it cannot be held to be a flawed one. Thus the challenge to it in this appeal fails. 8. The other ground of attack is because of repeal of the GIA Order, 1994 by GIA Order, 2004 and 2008. The objection raised to the eligibility to receive grant-in-aid as above, having been turned down, the applicants have thus been found to be eligible to receive grant-in-aid prior to the repeal of GIA Order, 1994 by subsequent GIA Order, 2004 and 2008. The ratio decided in case of Prafulla Kumar Sahu vrs. State of Orissa, 2003(I) OLR-91, comes to the aid of the case of the applicants. The Tribunal appears to have rightly answered the question in favour of the applicant's entitlement to the benefit of grant-in-aid as per GIA Order 1994, relying upon the decisions in case of Prafulla Kumar Sahu (supra); Managing Committee, Jayadurga High School, Narla vrs. State of Orissa and others, in W.P.(C) No. 16767 of 2014 and that of Laxmidhar Pati and others vrs. State of Orissa and others, in W.P.(C) No. 16767 of 2014 and that of Laxmidhar Pati and others vrs. State of Orissa and others; 1996 (I) OLR 152. It has also rightly taken note of the similar benefits being provided in case of few other High Schools as stated at page 17 of the judgment similarly situated with this school in further applying the doctrine of fair play and equity for grant of same benefit of grant-in-aid as per GIA Order, 1994. The entitlement has been held to be with effect from 01.06.1994 i.e. on completion of four years after presentation of first batch of students in the Annual Examination which in this case was in the year 1991. 9. For the aforesaid discussion and reasons the finding of the Tribunal holding the order of the opposite party No. 1 under Annexure-7 before it as untenable is not liable to be interfered with. Consequentially, other directions given by the Tribunal to the opposite parties to notify the Institution of the applicants as an Aided Educational Institution as per the GIA Order, 1994 and accordingly to approve the appointments of the applicants and release of grant-in-aid in their favour as per their eligibility in accordance with said GIA Order, 1994 and payment of differential admissible salary hereby stand confirmed. 10. The appeal accordingly fails. No order as to cost is passed. Appeal Dismissed