JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J. - The instant appeal has been filed under Section-24-C of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 assailing the judgment dated 10.04.2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in G.I.A. Case No.40 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the claim of the appellant for release of grant-in-aid in terms of the provision of Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994") has been rejected by not interfering with the decision taken by the State Government through the Commissioner-cum- Secretary to Government of Odisha, Department of Higher Education dated 1.3.2012. 2. The fact leading to the instant appeal is that the appellant, who is working as Lecturer in Chemistry against the 1st post in Mahapurusa Hadi Das Junior Mahavidyalaya at Chhatia, in the district of Jajpur wherein +2 Arts stream was started with the concurrence of the Government and affiliation from the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Odisha. Initially one Sri P.K. Roul was appointed on 23.9.1988 as Lecturer in Chemistry and joined in service on 29.9.1988. From 20.1.1990, he abandoned the service. Then one Sri M.K. Barik was appointed and joined in service on 19.2.1990, but subsequently he was terminated from service w.e.f. 12.3.1998. Prior to termination of service of Sri Barik, the appellant was appointed as Lecturer in Chemistry on 28.11.1997 and joined in service on 1.12.1997. The Junior College has been in receipt of grant-inaid prior to the commencement of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994 and thereby treated as a Category-I type of College. The appellant being the holder of the 1st post of Lecturer in Chemistry, after completion of his qualifying period of service of five years, the College authorities had submitted a proposal before the Director for approval of his appointment with release of grant-in-aid, but no action was taken on such proposal. However, in the meantime, Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009 came into operation, under which, the case of the appellant was considered and Block Grant has been released in his favour in terms of the G.I.A. Order, 2009. However, in the meantime, Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009 came into operation, under which, the case of the appellant was considered and Block Grant has been released in his favour in terms of the G.I.A. Order, 2009. Challenging the aforesaid order, the appellant had filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2011 which was disposed of on 13.9.2011 directing the State Government to examine the eligibility of the appellant for getting the benefit under the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 and release it in his favour in accordance with the aforesaid rule. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court, the respondent no.1 has rejected his claim vide his order dated 1.3.2012. Hence, the jurisdiction of the State Education Tribunal, as conferred by virtue of the provision under Section-24-B of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, was invoked which ultimately was answered by the Tribunal vide order passed on 10th April, 2018 rejecting the claim of the petitioner, which is impugned in this appeal. 3. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant has taken the following two grounds:- (i) Since the appellant is fulfilling the criteria as stipulated in the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, according to him, the post was admissible as per workload and yardstick prevalent prior to commencement of the Amendment Act, has been filled-up prior to that date and it has completed the qualifying period of 5 years and on that ground, this Court has directed the State Government to consider but the State Government has rejected it on the ground that the date when the appellant has sought for benefit under the provision of G.I.A. Order, 1994 has been repealed and since the appellant has approached the authority at the time of operation of the G.I.A. Order, 2009, hence the benefit of Block Grant-in-Aid has been given in terms of the prevalent rule i.e. G.I.A. Order, 2009. (ii) The second ground taken by Mr. Rath that the State Government has rejected the claim of the appellant on the basis of the fact that the G.I.A. Order, 1994 has already been repealed and by virtue of repeal Act, no benefit can be given to the appellant but the Tribunal, on misconception without answering this, has deviated itself by going into the eligibility part by rejecting the claim of appellant on the ground that the appellant has not completed the qualifying period of 5 years. Mr. Mr. Rath has relied upon the orders/judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Shri Trilochan Sathua v. State of Orissa & Ors. (O.J.C. No.15384 of 1998), Birendra Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa (O.J.C. No.5549 of 1992), Smt. Bilasini Sahoo v. State of Orissa & Ors. (O.J.C. No.2901 of 1990), Kailash Chandra Dash v. State of Orissa & Ors. (O.J.C. No.5096 of 1997, Shri Basanta Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa & others (O.J.C. No.14212 of 1999) and Nimain Charan Sahoo v. State of Orissa and Ors. (O.J.C. No.2203 of 1996). 4. Per contra, Mr. A. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State-respondents no.1 and 2 has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal for the reason that the appellant is claiming the benefit under the fold of G.I.A. Order, 1994. For getting the said benefit, the provision as contained in G.I.A. Order, 1994 is to be complied with and as per the eligibility stipulated under paragraph-9 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, the appellant is not fulfilling the qualifying period of 5 years for the reason that the appellant has been appointed to the post only on 28.11.1997 and joined in the aforesaid post on 1.12.1997 and as such, he has not completed the qualifying period of five years. Hence, he is not eligible to get the benefit as per the Grant-inAid Order, 1994. He is also not eligible to get the said benefit in view of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 further also for the reason that the appellant is claiming the benefit under the G.I.A. Order, 1994 after its repealment and it is settled that after repealment, no benefit can be given to any person on the basis of repealed Act. He is also not eligible to get the said benefit in view of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 further also for the reason that the appellant is claiming the benefit under the G.I.A. Order, 1994 after its repealment and it is settled that after repealment, no benefit can be given to any person on the basis of repealed Act. Moreover, in the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 wherein it has been provided under the repeal and saving clause as contained in paragraph-4 that the benefit under the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 will only be given by virtue of the saving clause made therein i.e. the private educational institutions which are in receipt of any grant-inaid from Government under the Order so repealed immediately before the date of commencement of this Order, shall continue to receive such grant-in-aid, as if the Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 had not been repealed but the appellant is claiming the said benefit by making an application after the repealment of the Grant-in-Aid Order 1994 rather during the period of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009. Hence, he cannot claim any benefit on the basis of the repealed order i.e. G.I.A. Order, 1994 or G.I.A. Order, 2004 or G.I.A. Order, 2008 rather he is entitled to get the benefit as per the G.I.A. Order, 2009 and considering that aspect of the matter, the appellant has been given the benefit on the basis of the G.I.A. Order, 2009. Hence, the Tribunal, after taking it into consideration, has passed an order. As such, there is no infirmity in the same. Countering the second ground of Mr. Rath, it has been submitted by Mr. Pattnaik that the Tribunal has not exceeded its jurisdiction rather acted in terms of the order passed by the High Court, since the High Court has directed the State Government to take decision on the basis of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo vrs. State of Orissa & Others, (2003) 1 OrissaLR 91; and Chittaranjan Mohapatra and Others vrs. State of Orissa and Others (O.J.C. No.7574 of 2004 disposed of on 1.11.2002) but the Commissionercum-Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar considering the fact that the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 has been repealed and as such, there is no question of considering the claim of the appellant on the basis of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo's case or Chittaranjan Mohapatra's case. Hence, the finding has been given that in view of the repealed Act, no benefit can be given and the Tribunal exceeding one step forward has gone into the merit describing the eligibility part by rejecting the claim of the appellant and as such, it cannot be said that there is deviation from G.I.A. order as passed by the Tribunal. 5. Mr. Rath, in response, has submitted that the qualifying period, as par the G.I.A. Order, 1994, the date of creation of the post and not holding of the post by the particular incumbent. According to him, the post was approved way back from 23.9.1988 and during the relevant time, it was being held by Sri P.K. Roul and as such, the qualifying period of five years would be counted from 23.9.1988 which will be completed on 23.9.1993. Hence, the completion of the qualifying period of five years prior to 1.6.1994 is there, but this part of the fact is not considered by the Tribunal while rejecting the claim of the appellant. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and this Court sitting in appeal in exercise of power conferred under Section-24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 which confers power upon this Court to entertain the appeal against the order passed by the State Education Tribunal under the provision of Section-24-B of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 which is to be filed within sixty days from the date of order or decision or judgment. The issue raised by the appellant before the State Government or the Tribunal that he is entitled to get the benefit of full salary grant-in-aid in pursuant to the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 instead of extending the benefit of Block Grant-inAid in terms of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009. Before dealing with the legality and propriety of the order passed by the State Government or the Tribunal, certain provision needs to be referred herein. The Orissa Education Act, 1969 has been enacted upon in order to regulate the education system within the State. Before dealing with the legality and propriety of the order passed by the State Government or the Tribunal, certain provision needs to be referred herein. The Orissa Education Act, 1969 has been enacted upon in order to regulate the education system within the State. The State was more concerned with respect to the private educational institutions so that the educational institutions within the State may be strengthened and standard of education may be improved and for that, provision to extend the benefit of grant-in-aid has been made as per the Amendment Act brought by virtue of Orissa Act No.13 of 1994 by inserting a provision as Section 7-C wherein the relevant is sub-section (4) which is being referred herein below:- "7-C(4) 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 expense 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 under the said rule or order, as the case may be, shall be payable from such date as may be specified in that rule or order or from such date as may be determined by the State Government. Provided that pending framing of such rule or issue of order, the State Government may, without prejudice to such rule or order, direct that private educational institutions which were receiving grant-in-aid and the posts in such educational institutions in respect of which grant-in-aid was being released shall continue to be paid such amount as grant-in-aid as was being paid to them immediately prior to commencement of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994. (4-a) The grant-in-aid to be borne by the State Government on account of placement of a teacher in an aided educational institution receiving University Grants Commission scales of Pay under the Career Advancement Scheme, shall be limited to the extent as may be admissible by computing the period of service rendered by him against an approved post with effect from the date of completion of five years of service against such approved post : Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall be construed as to affect the seniority or any other conditions of service of such a teacher. (4-b) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court to the contrary, any instructions issued, actions taken or things done on or after the 1st day of January, 1986 in regard to matters provided in Subsection (4-a) shall be deemed to have been validly issued, taken or done as if the said Sub-section were in force at all material points of time." (i) The provision of Section 7-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 was not in the original statute enacted in the year 1969 rather it has been brought by way of an amendment in the Orissa Education Act, 1969 by way of Orissa Act No.13 of 1994 solely for the object of providing a provision for payment of grant-inaid, since the original Act contains a number of provisions laying down the circumstances in which the grant-in-aid may be withdrawn, there is no provision in the Act providing for payment of grant-in-aid. The Bill provides for payment of grant-in-aid to specified categories of Private Educational Institutions subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed or specified in an order. The Bill also seeks to supersede all previous authority including executive instructions, orders etc. issued from time to time with regard to payment of grant-in-aid and provides for formulation of consolidated rules/orders laying down conditions of eligibility and criteria for payment of grant-in-aid in accordance with the policies of Government. The Bill also seeks to consolidate, elaborate and reformulate the circumstances in which grant-in-aid may be withdrawn. Such provisions have been considered necessary with a view to making the system efficient and expenditure from public funds more purposeful. The Bill also seeks to consolidate, elaborate and reformulate the circumstances in which grant-in-aid may be withdrawn. Such provisions have been considered necessary with a view to making the system efficient and expenditure from public funds more purposeful. It is evident from the provision of Section-7-C(4) that no grant-in-aid shall be paid and no payment towards salary costs or any other expense 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. The State Government, therefore, in pursuant to the Section-7-C(4) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, has come out with the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. (ii) The Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 has been enacted upon in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section-7-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 to regulate payment of grant-in-aid to private educational institutions or for any post or to any person employed in such institutions being a Non-Government College, Junior Colleges or Higher Secondary School of the purpose of this order. The institutions have been classified into the following three categories for the purpose of the G.I.A. Order, 1994:- A Category-I (i) Non-Government Educational Institutions and approved Posts in such institution which have received grant-in-aid from Government or in respect of which grant-in-aid has been sanctioned by Government prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act; (ii) Other posts in Non-Government Educational Institutions covered under Category-I(i) which were admissible on the basis of workload and prevalent yardstick and had been filled up prior to commencement of the Amendment Act, but in respect of which no grant-in-aid had been sanctioned. Note : If a question arises whether a post was admissible on the basis of work-load and prevalent yardstick, the decision of the Director shall be final. B- Category-II (i) Colleges imparting instructions in and presenting regular candidates for the B.A., B.Sc. Note : If a question arises whether a post was admissible on the basis of work-load and prevalent yardstick, the decision of the Director shall be final. B- Category-II (i) Colleges imparting instructions in and presenting regular candidates for the B.A., B.Sc. or B.Com examinations with or without Honours of any of the Universities which have been functioning regularly for five years or more by the 1st June, 1994 after obtaining Government Concurrence recognition and affiliation of any University, or for three years of more if such institution is located in an educationally backward district, which has not been notified as an Aided Educational Institution and has not received grant-in-aid from Government for any post. (ii) Higher Secondary Schools and Junior Colleges conducting courses in Arts, Science and Commerce which have been functioning regularly for 5 years or more by the 1st June, 1994 after obtaining Government concurrence or recognition and of the Council, or for 3 years or more if such an institution is located in any educationally backward district, but which have not been notified as aided Educational Institution and have not received grant-in-aid from Government for any post. C-Category-III Non-Government Educational Institutions of the categories specified in sub-paras (1) and (2) of para 3 which have already been established and have received recognition of Government and affiliation prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act but do not come within Categories I or II of this paragraph, and such institutions which may be established and granted recognition by Government under the Act or the provision made thereunder and affiliation by the University by the Council, as the case may be after the commencement of this order. These issues are revolves in this case and the institution pertains to the Category-I and as such, reference of Category-I is being made herein below:- A Category-I (i) Non-Government Educational Institutions and approved Posts in such institution which have received grant-in-aid from Government or in respect of which grant-in-aid has been sanctioned by Government prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act; (ii) Other posts in Non-Government Educational Institutions covered under Category-I(i) which were admissible on the basis of workload and prevalent yardstick and had been filled up prior to commencement of the Amendment Act, but in respect of which no grant-in-aid had been sanctioned. Note : If a question arises whether a post was admissible on the basis of work-load and prevalent yardstick, the decision of the Director shall be final. It is evident from the stipulation made in Category-I(i) which includes Non-Government Educational Institutions and approved Posts in such institution which have received grant-in-aid from Government or in respect of which grant-inaid has been sanctioned by Government prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act; while Category-I(ii) stipulates with respect to other posts in Non- Government Educational Institutions covered under Category-I(i) which were admissible on the basis of workload and prevalent yardstick and had been filled up prior to commencement of the Amendment Act, but in respect of which no grantin-aid had been sanctioned. (iii) Category-II(i) stipulates colleges imparting instructions in and presenting regular candidates for the B.A., B.Sc. or B.Com examinations with or without Honours of any of the Universities which have been functioning regularly for five years or more by the 1st June, 1994 after obtaining Government Concurrence recognition and affiliation of any University, or for three years of more if such institution is located in an educationally backward district, which has not been notified as an Aided Educational Institution and has not received grant-in-aid from Government for any post. Under Category-II(ii) there are other categories which are Higher Secondary Schools and Junior Colleges conducting courses in Arts, Science and Commerce which have been functioning regularly for 5 years or more by the 1st June, 1994 after obtaining Government concurrence or recognition and of the Council, or for 3 years or more if such an institution is located in any educationally backward district, but which have not been notified as aided Educational Institution and have not received grant-in-aid from Government for any post. Category-III stipulates Non-Government Educational Institutions of the categories specified in sub-paras (1) and (2) of para 3 which have already been established and have received recognition of Government and affiliation prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act but do not come within Categories I or II of this paragraph, and such institutions which may be established and granted recognition by Government under the Act or the provision made thereunder and affiliation by the University by the Council, as the case may be after the commencement of this order. Under paragraph-5 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, it has been provided that all Non-Government Educational Institutions included in Category-I(i) of para 4 shall be deemed to be Aided Educational Institutions for purpose of this Order. Sub-para (2) of paragraph-5 of the Grant-in-Aid Order 1994 stipulates that no Non-Government Educational Institution falling within Category-II or Category-III of para 4 shall be eligible to be notified as an Aided Educational Institution under this Order unless it has fulfilled certain conditions as stipulated therein. Paragraph-8 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 stipulates that a NonGovernment Educational Institution which has been notified as an Aided Educational Institution shall not ipso facto be eligible to receive grant-in-aid such an institution will only be eligible to receive grant-in-aid towards salary cost of teaching and non-teaching posts in that institution which are eligible to receive grant-in-aid in accordance with the provisions of this order. Paragraph-9 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 stipulates the eligibility condition which is reflected herein below:- "9. (1) A teaching or a non-teaching post in a Non-Government Educational Institution coming under category-1 in respect of which grant-in-aid has been sanctioned at any time prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act shall be deemed to be an approved post for the purpose of this order. (2) A teaching or a non-teaching post not covered by subpara (1) of this para shall be treated as admissible and shall be eligible for approval subject to satisfying the following conditions:- (A) The post in respect of which approval is sought is a post in an educational institution which has been notified as an Aided Educational Institution. (B) (i) a post in a Non-Government Educational Institution coming under Category-I for which no grant-in-aid has been sanctioned prior to commencement of the Amendment Act, if; (a) The post was admissible as per workload and yardstick prevalent prior to commencement of the amendment Act. (b) has been filled up prior to that date; and (c) it has completed the qualifying period of five years or more, or of 3 years or more in case the institution is situated in backward area. (ii) a post in a Non-Government Educational Institution coming under Category-II if- (a) the post was admissible as per workload and yardstick prescribed in this order vide Annexure-III. (ii) a post in a Non-Government Educational Institution coming under Category-II if- (a) the post was admissible as per workload and yardstick prescribed in this order vide Annexure-III. (b) has been filled up prior to commencement of the Amendment Act, and (c) it has completed qualifying period of 5 years or more or of 3 years or more in case that institution is situated in an educationally backward district. (iii) A post in an educational institution coming under categoryIII or a post in institutions coming under Category-I and II which do not come within clauses (B) (ii) of Sub-para (2) of this para, if- (a) the post is admissible as per workload and yardstick prescribed in this order; and (b) it has completed qualifying period of 5 years or more from the date of its admissibility or of 3 years or more in the case of an educational institution situated in an educationally backward district or is a Women's Educational Institution. (c) The workload for determining admissibility of a post shall be computed by taking into account the total workload on account of Degree course and Higher Secondary course in all streams conducted in that institution. If a question arises as to whether a post is admissible on the basis of workload and/or yardstick the decision of the Director thereon shall be final. (d) The workload shall be determined with reference to the actual enrolment during the academic year in which the post is admissible, limited to the strength of students for which recognition and affiliation has been received and the number of candidates presented at the Higher Secondary or the Degree examination, as the case may be, from the same batch of students. (e) A post shall not be deemed to have completed the qualifying period unless- (i) the post has been filled up on full time basis during entire qualifying period. (ii) the post has not been filled up on honoraria or parttime basis at any time during the entire qualifying period. (iii) the post has been filled up by person recruited in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act Rules and instructions as applicable at the relevant time. (iv) the post has been filled up at all times during the qualifying period by a person duly qualified to hold such a post. (iii) the post has been filled up by person recruited in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act Rules and instructions as applicable at the relevant time. (iv) the post has been filled up at all times during the qualifying period by a person duly qualified to hold such a post. Note:- Duly qualified means a person possessing the minimum qualification and experience prescribed for the post at the time when the post was admissible or on the date recruitment was made whichever is later. (f) If any post admissible on the basis of workload and yardstick has not been filled up in the manner indicated in Clause (E), the period during which the post was not filled up in such manner shall not count towards completion of the qualifying period. Illustration : A post of a lecturer is admissible on 1.6.1985. Since the college is not situated in an educationally backward district, it would ordinarily have completed the qualifying period on 31.5.1990. It is found that this post was not filled up by the management for a 6 months, was filled up by an underqualified person for 4 months and was filled up by a lecturer on part-time basis for 2 months. This period of 12 months shall not count towards qualifying period. The post would now be eligible for approval with effect from 1.6.1986 and grant-in-aid with effect from 1.6.1991. (G) An application has been made for approval of the post in the manner laid down. (3) Application for approval of posts which are eligible for approval by that date and application for notification of that educational institution as an Aided Educational Institution shall be made simultaneously in Form "A" Application for approval of any post which becomes eligible for approval thereafter shall be made in Form "B" prescribed in Annexure-II within three months from the date of its eligibility for approval. An application received in Form "B" shall be deal with in the manner laid down in para 7. Where the Director is satisfied that a post is eligible for approval, he shall issue an order to that effect with prior concurrence of State Government indicating the date from which the post has been approved and the date of eligibility of that post to receive grant-in-aid. Where the Director is satisfied that a post is eligible for approval, he shall issue an order to that effect with prior concurrence of State Government indicating the date from which the post has been approved and the date of eligibility of that post to receive grant-in-aid. (4) (i) The date of eligibility of a post in respect of which grant-in-aid has been sanctioned prior to commencement of the Amendment Act shall be the date on which the posts were admitted to the fold of grant-in-aid for the first time. (ii) The date of eligibility of a post for which grant-in-aid has not been sanctioned shall be the first day of the academic year following the date on which an approved post completes the qualifying period as applicable to the post. Provided that the date of eligibility in respect of a post in an educational institution coming within category II and III shall in no case be date prior to 1.6.1994. Paragraph-9(2)(B)(i) of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 provides that a post in a Non-Government Educational Institution coming under Category-I for which no grant-in-aid has been sanctioned prior to commencement of the Amendment Act, if; (a) The post was admissible as per workload and yardstick prevalent prior to commencement of the amendment Act; (b) has been filled up prior to that date; and (c) it has completed the qualifying period of five years or more, or of 3 years or more in case the institution is situated in backward area. Paragraph-13 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 reads as follows:- "When more than one scale of pay are admissible for a post based on qualifications and /or experience, the higher scale of pay shall not be taken into account for computing the grant-in-aid if the grant-in-aid is payable to a person who does not possess the qualifications and/or experience required for the higher scale of pay and has not been selected for the post carrying the higher scale in accordance with procedures and selection process applicable." Paragraph-15(f) of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 provides date of appointment. Paragraph-15(h) of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 reads as follows:- "Whether any other person was appointed against that post at any time in the post with detailed reasons for their noncontinuance in the post. Paragraph-15(h) of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 reads as follows:- "Whether any other person was appointed against that post at any time in the post with detailed reasons for their noncontinuance in the post. In case of termination of services by the management or resignation full particulars along with copies of documents in support may be furnished." Paragraph-16 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 reads as follows:- "16. (1) On receipt of a proposal from the Governing Body under para15, the Director shall examine each case and if he is satisfied that the person proposed by the Governing Body is eligible to receive grant-inaid against an approved post he shall make an order to that effect. Where the Director is satisfied that a person proposed by the Governing Body is not eligible to receive grant-in-aid his decision shall be communicated to the Governing Body. For the purpose of satisfying himself as to eligibility of a person to receive grant-in-aid, the Director may call for any information, clarification or document that he considers necessary for the purpose. (2) No person shall be eligible to receive grant-in-aid against an aided post unless:- (i) he has been lawfully and validly appointed to that post by the competent authority in accordance with the law, rules and instructions in force at the time of his appointment and has been continuing to hold that post on and beyond the date of eligibility of the post to receive grant-in-aid; and (ii) he possessed educational qualifications and experience required holding that post at the time of his recruitment or on the date of the post was admissible to grant-in-aid, whichever is later." Thus, there are three conditions which are to be filled up for getting the benefit of grant-in-aid; (i) the post is to be admissible as per the workload and yardstick prevalent prior to 1.6.1994; (ii) has been filed up prior to that date i.e. prior to 1.6.1994 and; (iii) is qualifying period of five years for the urban areas or three years for the rural areas as the case may be, meaning thereby, the provision made under Paragraph-9(2)(B)(i)(a)(b) is with respect to the post and Paragraph9(2)(B)(i)(c) stipulates with respect to the qualifying period of five years or more, or of 3 years or more. The provision as contained in paragraph-9(iii)(e) of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 stipulates that the post is to be filled up at all times during the qualifying period by a person duly qualified to hold the post, meaning thereby the post is to be filled up by a person for the entire qualified period. The provision at paragraph-13 of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 provides that the Grant-in-Aid is not payable to a person, who does not possess the qualifications and/or experience required the higher scale of pay, has not been selected for the post in accordance with law. The paragraph-15 of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 contains the provision to furnish information, the two of the information contained in (f) and (h) reflects the information regarding date of appointment and details of any person, if appointed on such posts. The paragraph-16 of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 confers power upon Director to examine each case to ascertain regarding fulfilling eligibility conditions of the person proposed by Governing Body to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid. If these provisions along with the eligibility conditions as provided under paragraph-9(2)(B) of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, it would mean the conditions required to be filled up for getting the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 is that post is to be admissible as per workload and the post is to be filled up prior to 1.6.1994 and the incumbent who is seeking the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 is to hold the post for a period of 5 years, if the institution is in urban areas or 3 years, if the institution is in rural areas. Under the note, the definition of "duly qualified" has been given which is being reflected herein below along with illustration:- "Note:- Duly qualified means a person possessing the minimum qualification and experience prescribed for the post at the time when the post was admissible or on the date recruitment was made whichever is later. (f) If any post admissible on the basis of workload and yardstick has not been filled up in the manner indicated in Clause (E), the period during which the post was not filled up in such manner shall not count towards completion of the qualifying period. Illustration : A post of a lecturer is admissible on 1.6.1985. Since the college is not situated in an educationally backward district, it would ordinarily have completed the qualifying period on 31.5.1990. Illustration : A post of a lecturer is admissible on 1.6.1985. Since the college is not situated in an educationally backward district, it would ordinarily have completed the qualifying period on 31.5.1990. It is found that this post was not filled up by the management for a 6 months, was filled up by an under-qualified person for 4 months and was filled up by a lecturer on part-time basis for 2 months. This period of 12 months shall not count towards qualifying period. The post would now be eligible for approval with effect from 1.6.1986 and grant-in-aid with effect from 1.6.1991." It is evident from the aforesaid note that duly qualified means a person possessing the minimum qualification and experience prescribed for the post at the time when the post was admissible or on the date recruitment was made whichever is later. Further, if any post admissible on the basis of workload and yardstick has not been filled up in the manner indicated in clause(E), the period during which the post was not filled up in such manner shall not count towards completion of qualifying period. As per the illustration as referred above, which speaks that a post of Lecturer is admissible on 1.6.1985. Since the college is not situated in an educational backward district, it would ordinarily have completed the qualifying period on 31.5.1990. It is found that this post was not filled up by the management for a period of 6 months, was filled by an under-qualified person for 4 months and was filled up by a lecturer on part-time basis for 2 months. This period of 12 months shall not count towards qualifying period. The post would now be eligible for approval with effect from 1.6.1986 and grant-in-aid with effect from 1.6.1991. (iv) Paragraph-10(1) of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 stipulates that Grant-in-aid payable to an Aided Educational Institution shall be the sum total of grant-in-aid admissible towards salary cost at rates specified below for each admissible and approved post from and after the date of eligibility and the grant-inaid so payable shall be disbursed directly to the incumbents validly appointed and holding the post eligible for grant-in-aid either by the Director or through any other agency so authorised by Government, Government may from time to time determine the mode and form of disbursement. Sub-para (2) of paragraph-10 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 stipulates that grant-in-aid for a post in a Non-Government Educational Institution coming under Category-I in respect of which grant-in-aid has been sanctioned at any time prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act shall continue to be paid at the rate at which grant-in-aid was admissible on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act and such a post shall also be eligible to get grant-in-aid at the rate of 2/3rd of the approved salary cost 2 years after the date of receipt of grant at the rate of 1/3rd and at the rate of full admissible salary cost 2 years thereafter, if not already paid at such rates. Sub-para (3) of paragraph-10 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 stipulates that a post in an Aided Educational Institution coming under Category-I for which no grant-in-aid has been sanctioned prior to commencement of the amendment Act shall be eligible to receive grant-in-aid at the rate of 2/3rd of the admissible salary cost from the date of eligibility, at the rate of 1/3rd of the admissible salary cost 2 years after receipt of grant-in-aid at the rate of 1/3rd and at the rate of full admissible salary cost 2 years thereafter. Admissible salary cost has been defined under paragraph-11 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 which stipulates that admissible salary cost for the purpose of computation of grant-in-aid payable against any post shall mean pay at the lowest stage in the scale of pay with one increment for each completed year of service after the date of commencement of payment of grant-in-aid and shall include D.A. at the rates made applicable by the State Government from time to time. The scale of pay for the purpose of computation of grant-in-aid shall mean a scale of pay prescribed by the State Government for Non-Government institutions for that post. Provisions of the Orissa Service Code relating to grant of increment shall mutatis mutandis apply for determining eligibility for earning increments subsequent to the first date of admission of a post into the fold of grant-in-aid. Provisions of the Orissa Service Code relating to payment of subsistence allowance shall mutatis mutandis apply to an employee holding an aided post who is placed under suspension by the competent authority provided that approval of Director has been obtained within the period stipulated in the relevant Rules. Provisions of the Orissa Service Code relating to payment of subsistence allowance shall mutatis mutandis apply to an employee holding an aided post who is placed under suspension by the competent authority provided that approval of Director has been obtained within the period stipulated in the relevant Rules. Thus, it is evident from reading out the provision as contained in Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 that in entirety, the purpose for enacting the aforesaid Order was to provide the salary cost by way of grant-in-aid. Government, after considering the financial viability, has decided to repeal the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 by substituting it by Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 enacted w.e.f. 5th February, 2004 in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 7-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, the remarkable change has been made in between the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 and Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 replacing the admissible salary cost to be given to the institution of the staff of the aided institution to that of the block grant which shall be a fixed sum of grant-inaid determined by taking into account the salaries and allowances, as on the 1st day of January, 2004, of the teaching and non-teaching employees of the educational institution which has become eligible to receive grant-in-aid by the 1st day of June, 1994 in accordance with the Grant-in-aid, 1994, but the determination of the quantum of such block grant shall be within the limits of economic capacity of Government as mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 7-C of the Act and shall have no linkage with the salary and allowance payable to any such employee by the Governing Body from time to time. Sub-para (2) of paragraph-3 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 is being referred herein below:- "The block grant payable to the private educational institutions under sub-para (1) shall be a fixed sum of grant-in-aid, which shall be determined by taking into account the salaries and allowances, as on the 1st day of January, 2004, of the teaching and non-teaching employees of the educational institution which has become eligible to receive grant-in-aid by the 1st day of June, 1994 in accordance with the Grant-in-aid, 1994, but the determination of the quantum of such block grant shall be within the limits of economic capacity of Government as mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 7-C of the Act and shall have no linkage with the salary and allowance payable to any such employee by the Governing Body from time to time." Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 also contains the provision of repeal and saving under paragraph-4, which is being quoted herein below:- "4. Repeal and saving (1) The Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 is hereby repealed, save for the purposes mentioned in sub-para (1) of para 3. (2) Notwithstanding the repeal under sub-para (1), the private educational institutions which are in receipt of any grant-in-aid from Government under the Order so repealed immediately before the date of commencement of this Order, shall continue to receive such grant-in-aid, as if the Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 had not been repealed." Thus, it is evident from the repeal provision that the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 has been repealed, save for the purposes mentioned in sub-para (1) of para-3 with a stipulation contained therein at sub-para (2) of paragraph-4 that the repealment made under sub-para (1) shall not affect to the private educational institutions which are in receipt of any grant-in-aid from Government under the Order so repealed immediately before the date of commencement of this Order and shall continue to receive such grant-in-aid, as if the Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 had not been repealed. It is evident from the repeal and saving clause that the benefit given to such institutions, which are in receipt of any grant-in-aid from Government, shall not be affected from repeal clause and they will continue to get it, as if the Grant-inAid Order, 1994 had not been repealed. It is evident from the repeal and saving clause that the benefit given to such institutions, which are in receipt of any grant-in-aid from Government, shall not be affected from repeal clause and they will continue to get it, as if the Grant-inAid Order, 1994 had not been repealed. Government thereafter has come out with Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008 notified w.e.f. 7th January, 2009 wherein at paragraphs-3 and 4 stipulate eligible educational institutions; and eligibility, criteria for consideration for Block Grant, which are being referred herein below:- "3. Eligible Educational Institutions The following NonGovernment Educational Institutions shall only be eligible for consideration for Block grant for being notified as Aided Educational Institutions under Clause (b) of Section 3 of the Act, namely :- (1) Higher Secondary Schools or Junior Colleges recognized by Government and affiliated to the Council imparting instructions and presenting regular candidates for Higher Secondary Examinations in Arts, Science or Commerce streams conducted by the said Council. (2) Colleges recognized by Government and affiliated to any of the Universities imparting instruction and presenting regular candidates for the +3 Arts, +3 Science and +3 Commerce Degree Examinations of the Utkal, Berhampur, Sambalpur, Fakir Mohan, North Orissa Universities and Ravenshaw Unitary University with or without Honours. "4. Eligibility, criteria for consideration for Block Grant-(1) The educational institutions described in Para 3 which have been established with recognition of Government and affiliation of the Council or the Universities as the case may be on or before the 1st June 1998 in respect of Educationally Advanced Districts, on or before the 1st June 2000 in respect of Educationally Backward Districts and Women's Educational Institutions established with such recognition and affiliation on or before the 1st June 2000 in both Educationally Advanced Districts and Educationally Backward Districts are eligible for Block Grant to be determined in the manner specified in Paragraph16. (2) The educational institution to be considered for Block Grant in accordance with this order shall have received recognition and affiliation for each course, stream and subject taught in that institution for each academic year for a continuous period of minimum 5 years in respect of Educationally Advanced District and 3 years and in respect of Educationally Backward District and Women's Educational Institution without any break or discontinuity from the date of establishment subject to the provisions of sub-Para(1) : Provided that in case of break or discontinuity, to acquire eligibility, the said qualifying period shall be computed from the date of revival." It is evident from the eligibility criteria as quoted above that the educational institutions described in Para 3 which have been established with recognition of Government and affiliation of the Council or the Universities as the case may be on or before the 1st June 1998 in respect of Educationally Advanced Districts, on or before the 1st June 2000 in respect of Educationally Backward Districts and Women's Educational Institutions established with such recognition and affiliation on or before the 1st June 2000 in both Educationally Advanced Districts and Educationally Backward Districts are eligible for Block Grant to be determined in the manner specified in Paragraph-16. Paragraph-16 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008 stipulates as follows:- "16. Components and admissibility of Block Grant (1) The Block Grant payable to the Non-Government Educational Institution under paragraph 9 shall be a fixed sum of Grant-in-aid, which shall be determined at the rate of 40% of the emoluments calculated at the initial of the existing time scale of pay applicable to the employees including existing. Dearness Pay and existing Dearness Allowance as admissible prospectively from the date of Notification of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008 in favour of the teaching and non-teaching employees of the educational institution who have become eligible to receive Grant-in-aid by 1st day of June, 2003. Dearness Pay and existing Dearness Allowance as admissible prospectively from the date of Notification of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008 in favour of the teaching and non-teaching employees of the educational institution who have become eligible to receive Grant-in-aid by 1st day of June, 2003. (2) The balance emoluments including Dearness Pay and Dearness Allowance after payment under sub-Para (1) shall be borne by the concerned Governing Body of the Aided Educational Institution." It is evident from the paragraph-16 as quoted above that the Block Grant payable to the Non-Government Educational Institution under paragraph 9 shall be a fixed sum of Grant-in-aid, which shall be determined at the rate of 40% of the emoluments calculated at the initial of the existing time scale of pay applicable to the employees including existing. Dearness Pay and existing Dearness Allowance as admissible prospectively from the date of Notification of the Grant-inAid Order, 2008 in favour of the teaching and non-teaching employees of the educational institution who have become eligible to receive Grant-in-aid by 1st day of June, 2003. The Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008 also contains the repeal and saving clause under paragraph-20, which is being quoted herein below:- "20. Repeal and Saving (1) The Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-aid Order, 2004 hereinafter referred to as the Grant-in-aid order is hereby repealed, save for the purposes of such private educational institution being a non-Government College, Junior College or Higher Secondary School which has become eligible under the said order to be notified as Aided Educational Institution to be entitled to receive Grant-inaid by way of Block Grant determined in the manner provided in the sub-para (2) of Paragraph 3 of the Grant-in-aid Order, 2004. (2) Notwithstanding the repeal under sub-para (1), the private educational institutions which are in receipt of any Grant-in-aid or Block Grant from Government under the orders so repealed immediately before the date of commencement of this Order, shall continue to receive such Grant-in-aid or Block Grant as the case may be as if the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 and the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 had not been repealed." It is evident from the repeal and saving clause as quoted above that the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 has been repealed, save for the purposes of such private educational institution being a non-Government College, Junior College or Higher Secondary School which has become eligible under the said order to be notified as Aided Educational Institution to be entitled to receive Grant-in-aid by way of Block Grant determined in the manner provided in the sub-para (2) of Paragraph 3 of the Grant-in-aid Order, 2004 while sub-para (2) of paragraph-20 stipulates that notwithstanding the repeal under sub-para (1), the private educational institutions which are in receipt of any Grant-in-aid or Block Grant from Government under the orders so repealed immediately before the date of commencement of this Order, shall continue to receive such Grant-in-aid or Block Grant as the case may be as if the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 and the Grantin-Aid Order, 2004 had not been repealed. Then, the Government has come out with Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009 in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 7-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 notified and implemented w.e.f. 6th June, 2009. The eligibility of the educational institutions has been provided under paragraph-3, which is being quoted herein below:- "3. Then, the Government has come out with Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009 in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 7-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 notified and implemented w.e.f. 6th June, 2009. The eligibility of the educational institutions has been provided under paragraph-3, which is being quoted herein below:- "3. Eligible Educational Institutions Employees of teaching and non-teaching categories of the following Educational Institutions notified as Aided Educational Institutions under clause (b) of Section 3 of the Act who have not received Grant-in-Aid or Block Grant shall only be eligible for consideration for receiving Block Grant for its employees if they have been appointed in accordance with the yardstick prevalent during the time of their appointment and after following due procedure for appointment in the posts which are admissible to such educational institutions, namely :- (a) 255 Non-Government Aided Junior Colleges receiving full Grant-in-Aid prior to commencement of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994 as at Annexure-'A'; (b) 193 Non-Government Aided Junior Colleges receiving Grantin-Aid in accordance with the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 as at Annexure-'B'; (c) 40 Non-Government Block Junior Colleges receiving Grant-inAid in shape of Block Grant in accordances with the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 as at Annexure-'C'; (d) 108 Non-Government Aided Degree Colleges receiving Grantin-Aid prior to commencement of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994 as at Annexure-'D'; (e) 28 Non-Government Aided Degree Colleges receiving Grantin-Aid in accordance with the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 as at Annexure-'E'; (f) 113 Non-Government Block Grant Degree Colleges receiving grant-in-aid in the shape of Block Grant in accordance with the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 as at Annexure-'F'." The admissibility of the Block Grant has been provided in paragraph-4 and the rate and disbursement of Block Grant has been provided under paragraph-5, which are being quoted herein below:- "4. Admissibility of the Block Grant Employees of the categories mentioned in Para-3 appointed prior to imposition of ban on recruitment by the Higher Education Department vide letter No.18074/HE., dated the 20th April 1988 shall be entitled to receive Grant-in-Aid by way of block grant determined in the manner provided in Para 5 : Provided that in the Educational Institutions mentioned in Para 3, where one stream (Arts or Science or Commerce) had been admitted into the Grant-in-Aid fold and subsequently other streams or new subjects in the aided stream have been opened with Government recognition and affiliation by 1st June, 1998 in Educationally Advanced Districts and by 1st June, 2000 in Educationally Backward Districts including the first Women's Jr. College or Higher Secondary School or Women's College of a Sub-Division aided earlier, the additional posts which were admissible as per the yardsticks prevalent at that time shall be taken into consideration to receive Grant-in-Aid by way of block grant." "5. Rate and disbursement of Block Grant (1) The Block Grant payable to the employees of the Aided Educational Institutions under Para 4 shall be a fixed sum of Grant-in-Aid, which shall be determined by taking into account the initial of the basic pay at the pre-revised time scale of pay plus 7 increments plus Dearness Allowance at the rate of 41 percent as on the 1st day of January, 2004 of the teaching & nonteaching employees of the Aided Educational Institution, who have not received Grant-in-Aid or Block Grant, but the determination of the quantum of such Block Grant shall be within the limits of economic capacity of Government as mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 7-C of the Act and shall have no linkage with the salary and allowances payable to any such employee by the Governing Body, from time to time. (2) The Block shall be placed, through the Director, at the disposal of the Secretary of Governing Body of the concerned educational institution proportionately either on quarterly or monthly basis." (3) The Secretary of the Governing Body of each Aided Educational Institution at whose disposal the Block Grant is so placed shall utilize the grant in the manner and for the purpose, as may be specified by the Director and furnish the utilization certificate thereof at such interval as may be specified by the Director while releasing such grant. (4) The Block Grant shall not be utilized in respect of posts other than those for which it is sanctioned. (5) Payment of Block Grant under this Order shall be made w.e.f. February, 2009, which is payable on or after the 1st day of March, 2009. (6) No claim on account of Block Grant under this Order shall be made or entertained for any period prior to the month of February, 2009." It is evident from the rate and disbursement of Block Grant as provided under paragraph-5 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009 as quoted above that the Block Grant payable to the employees of the Aided Educational Institutions under Para 4 shall be a fixed sum of Grant-in-Aid, which shall be determined by taking into account the initial of the basic pay at the pre-revised time scale of pay plus 7 increments plus Dearness Allowance at the rate of 41 percent as on the 1st day of January, 2004 of the teaching & non-teaching employees of the Aided Educational Institution, who have not received Grant-in-Aid or Block Grant, but the determination of the quantum of such Block Grant shall be within the limits of economic capacity of Government as mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 7-C of the Act and shall have no linkage with the salary and allowances payable to any such employee by the Governing Body, from time to time. The Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009 has gone into amendment brought by way of Notification dated 22nd August, 2014 inserting some provision under paragraph-4 which relates to filling of the vacancies lawfully in between the period from 1st June, 1998 to the 1st June, 2003 due to vacancy caused on account of death or resignation or retirement or otherwise of the incumbent shall be considered to receive Grant-in-Aid by way of block grant. Thus, it is evident that the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 contains the provision to give full cost salary while in the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004, the remarkable change has been made, so far as the quantum of block grant is concerned. Likewise, in Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008 and 2009, meaning thereby, the Government, according to its financial viability, has taken decision, so far as the quantum of the grant is concerned. Likewise, in Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008 and 2009, meaning thereby, the Government, according to its financial viability, has taken decision, so far as the quantum of the grant is concerned. There is no dispute in the position of law that grant cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it cannot be attached to a post like that of salary and if the Government has made out a provision in order to give financial aid to the NonGovernment Aided Institution by way of grant which will be in addition to the salary which is being paid by the management to its teaching and non-teaching staff that solely depend upon the financial condition of the State Government and that is the reason the State Government by way of enactment as contained under Section 7-C(4) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 as provided that the grant-in-aid would be given on the basis of the order or enactment made in this regard and under the authority of the aforesaid provision, the different Grant-in-Aid Orders have been issued by the Government. In the present context, the implication of the repealment is of paramount consideration, since the appellant has claimed the benefit on the basis of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 which has been repealed by virtue of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 and after its repealment, the claim is being sought. The provision of Section-6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 needs to be referred herein to consider this aspect of the matter which stipulates as follows:- "6. The provision of Section-6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 needs to be referred herein to consider this aspect of the matter which stipulates as follows:- "6. Effect of repeal.- Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not- (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed." But, however, since by virtue of the Act which is being repealed or has been repealed, certain benefit as has been given to the person concerned shall not be affected. Reference may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Utter Pradesh and Others v. Hirendra Pal Singh and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 305 wherein their Lordships have held at paragraphs-22 and 24 which are being quoted herein below:- "22. It is a settled legal proposition that whenever an Act is repealed, it must be considered as if it had never existed. The object of repeal is to obliterate the Act from the statutory books, except for certain purposes as provided under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Repeal is not a matter of mere form but is of substance. Therefore, on repeal, the earlier provisions stand obliterated/abrogated/wiped out wholly i.e. pro tanto repeal." "24. Thus, there is a clear distinction between repeal and suspension of the statutory provisions and the material difference between both is that repeal removes the law entirely; when suspended, it still exists and has operation in other respects except wherein it has been suspended. Therefore, on repeal, the earlier provisions stand obliterated/abrogated/wiped out wholly i.e. pro tanto repeal." "24. Thus, there is a clear distinction between repeal and suspension of the statutory provisions and the material difference between both is that repeal removes the law entirely; when suspended, it still exists and has operation in other respects except wherein it has been suspended. Thus, a repeal puts an end to the law. A suspension holds it in abeyance." In the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India -vs- Kochi Cricket Private Limited and Others, (2018) 6 SCC 287 wherein their Lordships have held at paragraph-43 which is being quoted herein below:- "43. Shri Sundaram's submission is also not in consonance with the law laid down in some of our judgments. The approach to statutes, which amend a statute by way of repeal, was put most felicitously by B.K. Mukherjea, J. in State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh, SCR at pp. 899- 900, thus: (AIR p. 99, para 8). "8. In our opinion the approach of the High Court to the question is not quite correct. Whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid down in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will follow unless, as the section itself says, a different intention appears. In the case of a simple repeal there is scarcely any room for expression of a contrary opinion. But when the repeal is followed by fresh legislation on the same subject we would undoubtedly have to look to the provisions of the new Act, but only for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention. The line of enquiry would be, not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them. We cannot therefore subscribe to the broad proposition that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is ruled out when there is repeal of an enactment followed by a fresh legislation. Section 6 would be applicable in such cases also unless the new legislation manifests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the section. Such incompatibility would have to be ascertained from a consideration of all the relevant provisions of the new law and the mere absence of a saving clause is by itself not material. Section 6 would be applicable in such cases also unless the new legislation manifests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the section. Such incompatibility would have to be ascertained from a consideration of all the relevant provisions of the new law and the mere absence of a saving clause is by itself not material. It is in the light of these principles that we now proceed to examine the facts of the present case." This statement of the law has subsequently been followed in Transport and Dock Workers' Union v. New Dholera Steamships Ltd. at para 6 and T.S. Baliah v. ITO, SCR at pp. 71-72." In the light of the aforesaid provision, now the factual aspect of the instant case is to be taken note of. Admittedly, the post which the appellant is working was holding by one Sri P.K. Roul from 23.9.1988. Sri Roul has joined in service on 29.9.1988 and abandoned his post on 20.1.1990. Thereafter, one Sri M.K. Barik has joined in the post on 19.2.1990 but terminated on 12.3.1998. The appellant was appointed on 28.11.1997 and joined to the said post on 1.12.1997. The appellant is claiming that the institution in question is fulfilling the eligibility criteria as stipulated under paragraph-9(2)(B)(i)(c) of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 and as such, he is entitled to get the benefit on the basis of Grant-inAid Order, 1994 but the same has been disputed by the State-respondents by defending the order passed by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the post was admissible as per workload and yardstick which was one of the condition as stipulated in paragraph-9(2)(B)(i)(a) of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 that a post was also filled up prior to that date i.e. prior to 1.6.1994 which is required under the provision of 9(2)(B)(i)(b) Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. Now, only dispute which is to be dealt with by this Court regarding the eligibility condition as provided under the provision of 9(2)(B)(i)(c) of the G.I.A. Order, 1994 that relates to the completion of the qualifying period of 5 years. The appellant claims that the qualifying period will be counted from 29.9.1988 i.e. the date when Mr. P.K. Roul has joined the post thereby the 5 years period since been completed w.e.f. 29.9.1993 and as such, he is entitled to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. The appellant claims that the qualifying period will be counted from 29.9.1988 i.e. the date when Mr. P.K. Roul has joined the post thereby the 5 years period since been completed w.e.f. 29.9.1993 and as such, he is entitled to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. But this argument is not acceptable by this Court for the reasons: The condition stipulated under paragraph-9(2)(B)(i)(a)(b) of the Grantin-Aid Order, 1994 relates to the post, but so far as it relates to paragraph9(2)(B)(i)(c) of the Grant-in-Aid, 1994, the same relates to the qualifying period of 5 years or 3 years as the case may be. It is also important to refer herein that in order to consider the fact that what would be the meaning of the 'qualified'. For this, if the provision as contained in paragraph-9(2)(B)(c) of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 is to be read out along with paragraphs-13, 15(f)(h) and 16 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 along with the note appended to under paragraph-9 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 which stipulates "duly qualified" means a person possessing the minimum qualification and experience prescribed for the post at the time when the post was admissible or on the date recruitment was made whichever is later. This stipulation made in the note quoted above does suggest that a person possessing the minimum qualification and experience prescribed for the post at the time when the post was admissible or on the date recruitment was made whichever is later. On conjoint reading of all these provisions, the qualifying period does not only include the period for posts rather it would mean the person, seeking claim, either completed five years or three years as the case may be or not. It is for the reasons that qualifying period always means for its incumbent. For example, for getting the pensionary benefit applicable under rule, the minimum qualifying period of ten years required, and if the qualifying period of post would be taken into consideration, all the incumbents joined service on substantive basis in a pensionable service will became entitled for pension even if worked for a year or two. In the light of this, the factual aspect and claimed raised by the appellant has been examined. In the light of this, the factual aspect and claimed raised by the appellant has been examined. It is not in dispute that the post was created on 23.9.1988 which was held by one Sri P.K. Roul but the part of the service rendered by him cannot be counted towards the part of the service rendered by the appellant rather the period of service rendered either by Sri P.K. Roul or by Sri M.K. Barik will be treated to be his part of his service and the same will not treated to be qualifying period of service of the appellant. This can be demonstrated by considering the illustration part as quoted above wherein it reflects that part of the service if rendered by a particular person in a post not in regular post or not following the procedure of law will be taken out from the definition of the qualifying period which suggest and corroborate that qualifying period denotes the period of service rendered by a particular incumbent and not related to a post. In view of such discussions and according to the considered view of this Court, the appellant is not eligible to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 by holding the post for five years as on 01.06.1994. The question may arise, if the appellant is not eligible to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, Since not completed the five years of qualifying period as on 01.06.1994, then why cannot he be entitled to get the benefit after completion of five years of service on the post from the date of appointment which has completed on 01.12.2002 (since joined on 01.12.1997). Although this is not the case of the appellant, but the same is being dealt in herewith in order to discuss the implication of the repealed Act. The appellant also cannot be held to be entitled to get the benefit of grant-in-aid in pursuant to the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 for the reason that the Grant-in-Aid, 1994 has been enacted upon by the State in exercise of powers conferred under the provision of Section 7-C(4) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. The appellant also cannot be held to be entitled to get the benefit of grant-in-aid in pursuant to the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 for the reason that the Grant-in-Aid, 1994 has been enacted upon by the State in exercise of powers conferred under the provision of Section 7-C(4) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. The aforesaid provision stipulates that no grant-in-aid shall be paid and no payment towards salary costs or any other expense 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, meaning thereby, the benefit of grant-in-aid can only be extended on the basis of the prevalent grant-in-aid order. Admittedly, the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 contains the provision to give the salary cost as per the provision stipulated in paragraph-11 of the Grant-inAid Order, 1994 but by making remarkable shift by incorporating the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 effected w.e.f. 5th February, 2004, the Government has taken decision to extend the benefit of grant which shall be a fix sum of grant-in-aid determined by taking into account the salaries and allowances, as on the 1st day of January, 2004, of the teaching and non-teaching employees of the educational institution which has become eligible to receive grant-in-aid by the 1st day of June, 1994 (para-2 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004) and thereafter, Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008 has come which has also been enacted by giving remarkable change in the monetary benefit by changing the quantum from the fix sum of grant-in-aid which shall be determined by taking into account the salaries and allowances as on the 1st day of January, 2004. It has been provided in the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008 that by way of fix sum of grant-in-aid which shall be determined @ 40% of the emoluments calculated at the initial of the existing time scale of pay applicable to the employees including existing Dearness Pay and existing Dearness Allowance as admissible prospectively from the date of Notification of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008 (para-16 of the Grantin-Aid Order, 2008) and again the Government has come out with Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009, by which, the rate and disbursement of Block Grant has been stipulated which shall be a fixed sum of Grant-in-Aid determined by taking into account the initial of the basic pay at the pre-revised time scale of pay plus 7 increments plus Dearness Allowance at the rate of 41 percent as on the 1st day of January, 2004 (para-5 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009). Thus, it is evident while the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 stipulates for full salary cost, but the Government, taking into consideration its viability, has taken decision by way of policy decision by enactment of Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 or 2008 or 2009 reducing the quantum part from full salary cost to fix sum. It is further evident from the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 that the benefit on the basis of the fix sum of grant-in-aid by determining it on the basis of salaries and allowances as on the 1st day of January, 2004. Likewise, in the Grant-in-Aid, 2008 or 2009, the cut-off date is 1st January, 2004. Further, the eligibility to receive grant-in-aid is to seen as on the 1st day of June, 1994 in accordance with the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, meaning thereby, the eligibility part has remain untouched by enacting either Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 or 2008 or 2009, but the determination of the quantum of Block Grant has been decided to be determined by taking into account the salaries and allowances as on the 1st day of January, 2004 and if in this situation, an incumbent either teaching or non-teaching staff approaching to the court of law by making claim that he is entitled to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 that is for claiming the full salary cost, then it would not be permissible after repealment of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 and coming into effect of the subsequent Grant-inAid Orders either Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 or 2008 or 2009. If by virtue of the repealment of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, if the appellant would be extended the monetary benefit on the basis of repealed Act, there would be no meaning of repealment of the Act and it will go contrary to the principle of repealment as laid down under the provision of Section-6 of the General Clauses Act, since repealment means that any Act if repealed will be said to be not in existence from the date of its enactment and the benefit or right already accrued will not be adversely affected but the prime question to get the benefit of repealed Act would be that any benefit must have been granted under the provision of the Act which has subsequently been repealed. Much emphasis has been given that in view of the saving clause as provided under the provision of paragraph-4 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 by which the educational institutions in whose favour the grant-in-aid has been continued to receive, as if the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 has not repealed. The appellant could be held to be entitled to get the benefit of Grantin-Aid Order, 1994, if the aforesaid Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 would not have been repealed, as has been discussed hereinabove that repealment of the provision stipulates that the law was never been in existence because much emphasis has been given that in view of the saving clause, it can be given even after its repealment, since the institution, under which the appellant is continuing in service, has been saved by virtue of the saving clause, but the question herein that what would be meaning of educational institutions whether it is the institution alone or along with the posts. This Court, after going through the provision of Section 7-C(4) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 as also the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, is of the view that the two conditions have been laid down for getting the benefit of grant-in-aid. First is that the institution must be an aided under the provision of Section-3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 and other is that the post is to be admissible as per workload and prevalent yardstick, as would be evident from the provision of paragraph-9(2)(B) of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 which does mean that if an institution workload is not there as per yardstick, no post can be said to be admissible. Hence, post is an integral part of an institution to be created on the basis of workload as per the yardstick prevalent. No doubt, under the provision of paragraph-4 while saving the benefit already extended, the educational institutions have been decided to be given the benefit of grant-in-aid, as if the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 has not been repealed, but the reference of educational institutions will not mean that the institution alone rather it would also include the post. It is not in dispute that Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 or the subsequent Orders have been enacted upon by the State authorities in the light of the provision as contained under Section 7-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. The said provision contains under sub-section(4) that no grant-in-aid shall be paid and no payment towards salary costs or any other expense 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. The said provision contains a proviso to the effect that pending framing of such rule or issue of order, the State Government may, without prejudice to such rule or order, direct that private educational institutions which were receiving grant-in-aid and the posts in such educational institutions in respect of which grant-in-aid was being released shall continue to be paid such amount as grant-in-aid as was being paid to them immediately prior to commencement of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994. It is evident from the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 7-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 that private educational institutions which are receiving grant-in-aid and the posts in such educational institutions in respect of grant-in-aid was being released, does suggest that the grant-in-aid is to be released to a post in an educational institution. Although under the repeal clause as contained under Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 or 2008, it has been referred that the educational institutions which were getting the benefit of grant-in-aid will continue to get it, as if the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 has not been repealed. Although under the repeal clause as contained under Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 or 2008, it has been referred that the educational institutions which were getting the benefit of grant-in-aid will continue to get it, as if the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 has not been repealed. Since the same have been saved and the appellant is an appointee of such institution will continue to get it is not acceptable for the reason that the saving clause is also contained under the proviso to Section 7-C(4) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 and the said proviso provides that the benefit of grant-in-aid is to be given against a post in an institution. Hence, merely because the word 'post' has not been reflected under the saving clause in paragraph-4(2) of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004, it does not mean that the institution which were getting the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 will continue to get it, even though the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Order has not been extended to the post. As such, by virtue of the repealment of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, no benefit can be granted even if an incumbent will complete the five years of service after 01.06.1994. There is no dispute in settled position of law that if there is any ambiguity in subordinate legislation from the principal enactment, it is the principal law that will prevail. The Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 or 2004 or 2008 is subordinate legislation, enacted in terms of the provision of Section-7C(4) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. Hence, provision contained in principal Act i.e. under Section-7-C(4) of the Act, 1969 will prevail which contains under its proviso by which the institutions which are receiving grant-in-aid and post in respect of which grant-in-order was being released has been saved, as such, the repeal clause as contained in Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 or 2008, the reference of institutions means along with posts. Further contention regarding saving of the educational institution will also not acceptable for the reason that the Section-6 of the General Clauses Act speaks regarding the right, if accrued on the basis of the repealed Act would not be adversely affected and it is settled that the right cannot be said to be accrued in favour of an institution rather the right will be said to be accrued in favour of the persons being a part of the said institution. Admittedly, herein the appellant has not been extended the benefit on the basis of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. As such, this Court is of the considered view on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove that since the appellant has approached before the court of law/Tribunal in the year, 2011 i.e. after repealment of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 rather during the subsistence period of Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009, hence the Tribunal, taking note of the effect of the repealment of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, has rightly extended the benefit on the basis of Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009. Hence, there is no illegality. The contention of the appellant that the issue raised in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 22208 of 2011 is regarding the benefit of grant-in-aid and the same has been directed to be dealt with by this Court by directing the State Government to consider on the basis of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo's case or Chittaranjan Mohapatra's case but the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government of Odisha, Department of Higher Education has gone into the repeal part of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 by rejecting it and the said order was challenged before the Tribunal but no whisper has been made by the Tribunal regarding the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government of Odisha, Department of Higher Education wherein no such issue has been framed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government of Odisha, Department of Higher Education regarding his ineligibility. This Court, after appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties in this regard, is of the view that this Court has directed the State Government to consider the case of the appellant in the light of the Prafulla Kumar Sahoo's case or Chittaranjan Mohapatra's case, but the Commissioner-cumSecretary to Government of Odisha, Department of Higher Education, after taking note of the repealment of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, has come to the conclusion that the appellant, after repealment of the aforesaid legislation, cannot be allowed to be given the monetary benefit in terms of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. The same was assailed before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has not whispered with respect to the reason given by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government of Odisha, Department of Higher Education in the aforesaid order but he, by moving one step forward by dealing with the eligibility part i.e. by going into the factual aspect, has rejected the claim of the appellant. However, the Tribunal has not whispered with respect to the reason given by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government of Odisha, Department of Higher Education in the aforesaid order but he, by moving one step forward by dealing with the eligibility part i.e. by going into the factual aspect, has rejected the claim of the appellant. According to the considered view of this Court, the Commissionercum-Secretary to Government of Odisha, Department of Higher Education has taken into consideration the legal aspect of applicability of the repeal Act while the Tribunal has gone into the factual aspect regarding the eligibility and thereby the appellant is not in any way being prejudiced, even if this Court will quash the order passed by the Tribunal, on this ground, there will be no change in the factual aspect as has been dealt with by the Tribunal rather remitting the matter will be said to be the futile exercise and it is settled position of law that if there is no likelihood of change in the decision, even if the matter would be remitted. Hence, merely for the sake of remitting the matter, will not be proper. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Farms Ltd. -vs- Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. & others, (2004) 4 SCC 281 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at paragraph-64 which is being quoted herein below: "64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of government grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Remand of cases of a group of transferees who were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so, when on this legal question all affected parties have got full opportunity of hearing before the High Court and in this appeal before this Court. Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we, therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India." In the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. -vs- Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, (2015) 8 SCC 519 wherein their Lordships have held at paragraph-39 which is being quoted herein below: "39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasizing that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straitjacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason- perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling- it is felt that a fair hearing "would make no difference"- meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker." This Court has considered the citations referred by learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant and as such, the same is necessary to deal with. So far as the order passed by this Court in the case of Shri Trilochan Sathua and Birendra Kumar Mishra are concerned, which has been allowed on the basis of the order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Bilasini Sahoo . So far as the order passed by this Court in the case of Shri Trilochan Sathua and Birendra Kumar Mishra are concerned, which has been allowed on the basis of the order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Bilasini Sahoo . This Court, after going across the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Bilasini Sahoo, has found that the factual aspect related to that case is that the writ petitioner of the said writ petition has been held to be eligible to get the benefit from the date of his joining to the post w.e.f. 1.8.1985 and on completion of 5 years i.e. by 1.8.1990 and as such, in the case of Smt. Bilasini Sahoo, it was not the case that the petitioner of the said writ petition was the subsequent appointee rather he has joined the post on 1.8.1985 and as such, shown her eligibility to get the grant-in-aid after completion of 5 years i.e. 1.8.1990. But here in the instant case, the appellant is claiming by virtue of the creation of the post from the date when one Sri P.K. Roul has got appointment over the said post from 23.9.1988 while actually the appellant has joined the post only on 01.12.1997. Hence, on fact, the judgment rendered either in the case of Shri Trilochan Sathua or Birendra Kumar Mishra or Smt. Bilasini Sahoo is not applicable. So far as the order passed by this Court in O.J.C. No.5096 of 1997 is concerned, the factual aspect is also different to that of the present case because in that case, the writ petitioner has joined against the first post of Lecturer in the year 1987 and from that date, he had claimed the benefit of grant-in-aid by virtue of the eligibility as per the eligibility condition. So far as O.J.C. No.14212 of 1999 is concerned, the petitioner of the said writ petition has joined in service on 13.8.1984 and on the basis of continuation of the aforesaid post, he has sought for the benefit of grant-in-aid. Hence, on the fact, the judgment rendered in these cases. So far as O.J.C. No.14212 of 1999 is concerned, the petitioner of the said writ petition has joined in service on 13.8.1984 and on the basis of continuation of the aforesaid post, he has sought for the benefit of grant-in-aid. Hence, on the fact, the judgment rendered in these cases. So far as the judgment in O.J.C. No.2203 of 1996 is concerned, that has passed on the basis of the order passed in the case of Smt. Bilasini Sahoo but the Division Bench of this Court in the instant order has taken different view to that of the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Bilasini Sahoo and moreover, in view of the order rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa & Ors. v. Prabhawati Padhihari (Civil Appeal No(s).796 of 2008). It is evident from the aforesaid order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the order passed by this Court in writ petition (C) No.9586 of 2005 wherein a direction was sought for from the State Government to approve the appointment of the writ petitioner as against the first post of Lecturer in Education and release all consequential service benefits within a reasonable time, but the case of the writ petitioner for grant of the benefit of the grant-n-aid was rejected vide order dated 23.7.2002 for the reason that her post was not eligible for grant-inaid as on 01.06.1994 and the State Government has extended the aid only to those cases while the candidates acquired eligibility before 01.06.1994. Thereafter, the writ petitioner had approached to the High Court through a second writ petition and this Court vide order dated 28.09.2005 has allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 23.7.2002 and directed the State authorities to approve her appointment against the post of Lecturer in the third appellant college and release all consequential benefits as was done in the similar situated persons referred in the order. The said order was under challenge before Hon'ble the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No(s).796 of 2008 (State of Orissa & Ors. The said order was under challenge before Hon'ble the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No(s).796 of 2008 (State of Orissa & Ors. v. Prabhawati Padhihari) where the State of Orissa has taken plea that the post of the writ petitioner was not admissible to grant-in-aid by virtue of the provision contained in Rule-4, Rule-5(2)(A), Rule-9(2)(B)(ii), 9(4) and 10 of the Grant-in-Aid Order which discloses the following provisions: (a) A women's college functioning regularly for three years or more as on 1.6.1994 after obtaining the Government recognition and affiliation of the University, is eligible for aid. (b) The post in such a college would be admitted for grant-inaid, if it has been in existence for three years or more. (c) The date of eligibility in respect of post in the educational institution shall in no case be a date prior to 1.6.1994. When these conditions are applied, it is clear that the order dated 23.7.2002 rejecting the claim of respondent was correct and there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the said order. The respondent has taken plea before Hon'ble the Supreme Court that several Lecturers have been given benefit of grant-in-aid. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking into consideration the principle of negative equality, has allowed the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the High Court by dismissing the writ petition with an observation that this order will not come in the way of the State Government considering the case of the respondent for grant of relief, if she has become subsequently eligible for whatsoever reasons. Thus, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has been pleased to consider the benefits of such teaching and non-teaching staff, if became subsequently eligible for whatsoever reasons. This observation does suggest that the benefit can be granted subject to eligibility on the basis of existing law. Thus, it is evident from the facts involved in the case of Prabhawati Padhihari that the eligibility of a teaching and non-teaching staff is to be seen as on 1.6.1994. This observation does suggest that the benefit can be granted subject to eligibility on the basis of existing law. Thus, it is evident from the facts involved in the case of Prabhawati Padhihari that the eligibility of a teaching and non-teaching staff is to be seen as on 1.6.1994. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant by putting reliance upon different several orders passed by this Court as referred hereinabove, it is evident that even if the post is approved since last 5 years but holder of the post if not completed 5 years of service, they will not be said to be eligible to get the benefit of grant-in-aid, since the qualifying period relates both to the post vis-?-vis the incumbent holding the said post. Hence, the orders/judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It is further evident that the appellant has failed to substantiate regarding the nature of appointment since he has failed to place on record before the Tribunal or even before this Court that his appointment was made substantively rather document placed on record before the Tribunal shows that his appointment was purely on contract basis with a consolidate salary of Rs. 1,000/- and as such, on this account also the appellant is not entitled to get the benefit of grant-in-aid since as per Grant-in-Aid Order, the benefit of grant-in-aid is to be given, if appointment to the post is on substantive basis and following due procedure. The appellant is claiming benefit of grant-in-aid by virtue of holding 2nd post of Lecturer in Chemistry but no such document was either produced before the Tribunal or before this Court to prove that 2nd post of Lecturer in Chemistry was admissible to the college as per workload. He has also failed to produce document with respect to the nature of appointment of Mr. P.K. Roul or Mr. M.K. Barik as to whether they were appointed after following due procedure with eligibility conditions rather it is evident that before termination of service of Mr. M.K. Barik, the appellant was appointed. 7. He has also failed to produce document with respect to the nature of appointment of Mr. P.K. Roul or Mr. M.K. Barik as to whether they were appointed after following due procedure with eligibility conditions rather it is evident that before termination of service of Mr. M.K. Barik, the appellant was appointed. 7. In view thereof and taking into consideration the elaborate discussions made hereinabove with respect to the factual aspect vis-?-vis the legal position, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal rather the Tribunal has passed the order strictly on the basis of the legal position and the settled position of law. 8. In view thereof, this Court refrains itself in exercise of the appellate power in interfering with the impugned order. Accordingly, the F.A.O. is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed