JUDGMENT S. N. PRASAD, J. - Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) has submitted that both the appeals may be taken up together. He has further insisted upon the Court that F.A.O. No.194 of 2016 may be heard first, since pleadings are complete. Mr. B. Senapati, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-appellants (in both the appeals) has fairly submitted that since the issues raised in both the appeals are similar, same may be heard together. In view of such submissions, this Court, after going across the judgments passed by the Tribunal and the grounds taken in both appeals, has found that the issues raised in both the appeals are similar and as such, heard both the appeals together and accordingly are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the appeals have been filed by the State of Odisha, represented through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Bhubaneswar under the provision of Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 assailing the judgments dated 11.01.2016 and 26.11.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in G.I.A. Case Nos.471 of 2012 and 469 of 2012 respectively whereby and whereunder the Tribunal, while allowing the applications filed by the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals), has extended the benefit of grant-in-aid by virtue of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. 3. The grounds for assailing the aforesaid judgments as has been taken in the instant appeals are :- (i) That the G.I.A. applications preferred before the Tribunal is not maintainable, since it is in violation of the provision of sub-section(3) of Section 24-B of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 which is a condition precedent for maintainability of grant-in-aid as before the Tribunal. (ii) That the post held by the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) is admissible to the college i.e. Gop College, Gop, District-Puri from the academic session 1993-94, they have joined in the college on 01.08.1993 and 2.11.1993 respectively and as such, the post held by them has completed the qualifying period of 5 years as on the cut-off date i.e. 1.6.1994 as per Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. (iii) That the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the order passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s).796 of 2008 i.e. in the case of State of Orissa & Ors. (iii) That the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the order passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s).796 of 2008 i.e. in the case of State of Orissa & Ors. v. Prabhawati Padhihari wherein it has been held that the said cut-off date of 1.6.1994 for the purpose of extension of grant-in-aid in respect of the post of Non-Aided Colleges as per the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. (iv) That the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the mandate of this Court that merely satisfying the eligibility by an institution, post cannot claim grantin- aid until and unless an order is passed to that effect by the competent authority with respect to the particular post in a subject in an institution. (v) The ratio laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmidhar Pati and Ors. Vs State of Orissa and Ors., reported in 1996 (I) OLR 152 has not been taken into consideration. 4. While, on the other hand, respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) have defended the order passed by the Tribunal by taking the ground that the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the order. The institution in question has become entitled to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 and since respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) were working in the aforesaid institution having joined in service there w.e.f. 1.8.1993 and 2.11.1993 as Lecturer in Mathematics and Botany respectively which have been approved. Hence, after completion of 5 years from their date of joining i.e. 1.6.1994, they became eligible to get the benefit of the provision of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 i.e. from 1.6.1999 in view of the provision of paragraph-9 of the Grantin- Aid Order, 1994. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the fact that the institution in question has come under the fold of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 and taking note of the fact that the proposals to extend the benefit of grant-in-aid in favour of the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) were lying pending before the competent authority, but no decision had been taken and as such, if the decision would not have been taken by the competent authority in view of the provision of law prevalent during the relevant time, they cannot be made to suffer. The Tribunal, after considering this aspect of the matter, has allowed the benefit of grant-in-aid in terms of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. Hence, there is no illegality in the same. The contention raised by the appellants-State of Odisha (in both the appeals) through its Higher Education Department before the Tribunal that after coming into effect of Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 which contains the provision of repealment that does not come in the way of extending the aforesaid benefit for the reason that under the provision of repealment, as contained in paragraph-4 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004, if the institution has been extended the benefit of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, it will continue to get. Here in the instant appeals, the institution in question has came into the grant-in-aid fold and also receiving the benefit by virtue of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. Hence, the provision of repealment will entitle the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) in getting the benefit of grant-in-aid by virtue of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. The Tribunal has taken note of this legal position and after answering the same, the benefit has been extended. Hence, there is no illegality. The several incumbents, who even though have not completed 5 years or 3 years of service, as the case may be, have been given benefit and hence the same cannot be denied to the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) and taking this fact into consideration, the Tribunal has passed the order treating it as violation the provision of Article-14 of the Constitution of India and as such, there is no illegality in the same. The contention raised by the State-appellants (in both the appeals) that Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 has came into force w.e.f. 5th February, 2004. Even though it has came into force by virtue of the order passed by this Court, all the incumbents, who have not been extended the benefit of grant-in-aid by virtue of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, has been granted the benefit in course of the subsistence period of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 and in that view of the order, it can well be said that the provision of Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 has become redundant. The Tribunal has also taken note of this aspect of the matter. 5. The Tribunal has also taken note of this aspect of the matter. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) has relied upon some orders/judgments in support of his arguments rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Orissa & Ors. v. Prabhawati Padhihari (Civil Appeal No(s).796 of 2008); Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Mrs. Rajni Vali and Others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 634 ; State of Orissa & Anr. V. Sushmita Tripathy & Anr. (Special Leave Petition to Appeal (Civil) No(s).18772 of 2007); J.S. Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.3299 of 2011 arising out of SLP (C) No.16427 of 2009); The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Ch. Gandhi, reported in AIR 2013 SC 2113 ; Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. G.V.K. Girls High School, reported in JT 2000 (9) SC 170; and Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, reported in AIR 2005 SC 648 as also orders/judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of Laxmidhar Pati and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors., reported in 1996 (I) OLR 152; Prafulla Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa and others, reported in 2003 (I) OLR-91; Aruna Kumar Swain & Anr. V. State of Orissa & Ors.,* reported in 2014 (I) ILR-CUT-205; Santosh Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha & others, (F.A.O. No.154 of 2016); State of Orissa and Anr. V. Satyananda Sahoo and Anr. (F.A.O. No.424 of 2015); State of Odisha and another v. Hrushikesh Mishra and others (F.A.O. No.426 of 2015); State of Orissa and another v. Dr. Chittaranjan Das and another (F.A.O. No.614 of 2015); and State of Odisha and Anr. V. Prabhakar Padhi and Others (F.A.O. No.75 of 2017). 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. Before going into the legality and propriety of the order, it is relevant to mention some factual aspect which is necessary to come to the rightful conclusion. V. Prabhakar Padhi and Others (F.A.O. No.75 of 2017). 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. Before going into the legality and propriety of the order, it is relevant to mention some factual aspect which is necessary to come to the rightful conclusion. Respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) have joined their services as Lecturer in Mathematics and Botany on 1.8.1993 and 2.11.1993 respectively as per the yardstick prevalent in an institution which was opened during the academic session 1993-94 after receiving necessary permission or recognition from the Government in its letter dated 20.12.1994 and 4.7.1995 respectively and got affiliation from the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar vide letter dated 1.6.1996. The aforesaid institution has got the benefit of grant-inaid much before the commencement of Amendment Act, 1994 and as such, it is Category-I College. The college in question has got permanent recognition from the Government during the academic session 2002-2003 vide order dated 24.10.2003 passed by the Regional Director of Education, Bhubaneswar. The Governing Body of the college in question has invited applications from the eligible candidates to fill up the post and in terms thereof, the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals), have made applications being found successful, were appointed in Lecturer in Mathematics and Botany on 1.8.1993 and 2.11.1993 respectively and since then, they are discharging their duties. They have completed qualifying period of 5 years and as such, necessary proposal was submitted before the concerned authority for approval of the post of the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) and release of grant-in-aid, but no action was taken, rather after implementation of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009, the State-appellants (in both the appeals) took the case of the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) to the zone of their consideration and released grant-in-aid in their favour as per the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009 in the shape of Block Grant vide order dated 17.2.2010. They, being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of the competent authority, have approached to this Court by filing writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos.7981 of 2011 and 7973 of 2011 respectively, which were disposed of with direction to the authorities to consider the case of the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) under Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 in accordance with the law laid down in the case of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa and others, reported in 2003 (1) OLR 1991, but no action was taken by the State-appellants (in both the appeals), which led them to file contempt applications being CONTC Nos.1667 of 2011 and 1668 of 2011 respectively and after receipt of notice in the aforesaid contempt applications, an order was communicated to them whereby and whereunder their claim were rejected, against which, they have approached to the Tribunal under the provision of Section-24-B of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 wherein the order has been passed in their favour which are under challenge in the instant memo of appeals by the Higher Education Department of the State of Orissa. 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.” 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 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. 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. 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. 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. (i) 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. 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 grant-inaid had been sanctioned. Category-II(i) stipulates colleges imparting instructions in and presenting regular candidates for the B.A., B.Sc. 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 or 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 the 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. 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 Non- Government 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. (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. (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 category- III 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 unless15 (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 part-time 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. 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. (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. (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. (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-inaid 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 non-continuance 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. 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 para- 15, 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 Paragraph-9(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 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. 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-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-in- Aid 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 Non- Government 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 Paragraph-16. (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-in25 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. 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-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. (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 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008 stipulates that notwithstanding the repeal under subpara (1), the private educational institutions which are in receipt of any Grant-inaid 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. 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- in- Aid 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 Non- Government Aided Institution by way of grant to the teaching and non-teaching staffs 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 has 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 respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) have 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.” The above provision stipulates that if by virtue of the Act which has been repealed, the benefits if 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, reported in (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, reported in (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.” It is further relevant to deal with certain judgments rendered by this Court on the subject after coming into effect of Orissa Education Act, 1969, the benefit of grant-in-aid was being extended on the basis of the executive instructions prevalent thereof and for the first time, the Government, in pursuant to the provision contained under Section-7(4) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, has enacted Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 known as Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004. A dispute arose as to whether the grant-in-aid can be claimed by virtue of right and mere satisfying the eligibility qualification, the said benefit can be given. This Court in the case of Jalada Delanga Uchha Bidyapith v. State of Orissa and Ors., reported in 1993 (I) OLR-77 wherein a Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that since the entitlement to receive aid flows from the order of the Government, until and unless an order is passed no right is accrued and on mere satisfying the eligibility qualification an institution cannot claim the grant-in-aid. The second judgment has come rendered by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kartik Ch. Mohanta and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors., reported in 1995 (I) OLR 310 wherein it has been held that a school when satisfies the pre-conditions contained in the grant-in-aid principles would become entitled to grant-in-aid and, therefore, the Government must release grant-in-aid with effect from that date. Mohanta and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors., reported in 1995 (I) OLR 310 wherein it has been held that a school when satisfies the pre-conditions contained in the grant-in-aid principles would become entitled to grant-in-aid and, therefore, the Government must release grant-in-aid with effect from that date. The matter due to divergent opinion, in between the two Division Bench, has been referred to the Larger Bench in the case of Laxmidhar Pati (supra), the Full Bench, after taking note of executive instruction prevalent at that time and also referring to the provision of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 at paragraph-12 of the aforesaid judgment, has come to the conclusive finding that the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jalada Delang Uchha Bidyapith (supra) is correct view, meaning thereby, the entitlement to receive aid flows from the order of the Government will only come until and unless an order is passed and in absence of any order, no right is accrued by merely satisfying the eligibility qualification. Thereafter, another order has come by this Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa and others, reported in 2003 (I) OLR-91 concurring with the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmidhar Pati (supra) at paragraph-13 whereby and whereunder the Division Bench of this Court in the Prafulla Kumar Sahoo’s case has held that only on the basis of eligibility and admissibility, no grant-in-aid is to be extended, if not decided by the competent authority in accordance with the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. Further, the ratio has been laid down that if the incumbent is entitled to get the benefit as per Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, cannot be denied merely on the ground of financial stringency. Another judgment has come in the case of Chittaranjan Mohapatra and Others vrs. State of Orissa and Others (O.J.C. No.7574 of 2004 disposed of on 1.11.2002) which has been decided on the basis of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo’s case. Another judgment has come in the case of Chittaranjan Mohapatra and Others vrs. State of Orissa and Others (O.J.C. No.7574 of 2004 disposed of on 1.11.2002) which has been decided on the basis of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo’s case. One order has been annexed to the memo of appeals passed by this Court in a writ petition (c) No.9586 of 2008 (Smt. Prabhawati Padhihari v. State of Orissa & Ors.) disposed of on 28.9.2005 wherein the issue fell for consideration as to whether the petitioner of the aforesaid writ petition whose appointed has been approved w.e.f. 23.7.2002 as against the first post of Lecturer in Education can be extended the benefit of grant-in-aid by virtue of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, this Court, while dealing with the issue, has quashed the decision taken by the authority and directed him to approve the appointment of the petitioner as against the first post of Lecturer in Education and released the benefit. The aforesaid order has been challenged before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s).796 of 2006 in the year 2008 and Hon’ble the Supreme Court, after taking into consideration the provision of law as contained in Rules-4, 5(2)(A), 9(2)(B)(ii), 9(4) and 10 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, has come to the finding that the order, by which, the claim of the petitioner of the aforesaid writ petition by which her appointment has been approved w.e.f. 23.7.2002 entitling to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Order has been rejected on the ground that the requirement of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 is that eligibility to get the benefit of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 is to acquire eligibility on or before 1.6.1994 and hence the claim ordered to be given in her favour has been rejected, however, with an observation that the order of rejection will not come in the way of the State Government in considering the case of the respondent for grant of relief, if she becomes subsequently eligible for whatsoever reasons. It is in the light of the statutory provision as referred hereinabove as also the judgment pronounced by this Court as well as Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the factual aspect needs to be considered. It is in the light of the statutory provision as referred hereinabove as also the judgment pronounced by this Court as well as Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the factual aspect needs to be considered. This Court, after appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the pleadings and materials available on record, has found that the following questions need to be answered by this Court:- (i) Whether the applications filed by the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) before the Tribunal under Section-24-B of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 are maintainable? (ii) Whether respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) will be held to be eligible to get the benefit of Grant-in- Aid Order, 1994 after completion of 5 years of service w.e.f. 1.8.1993 and 2.11.1993 respectively? and (iii) Whether the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) are entitled to get any benefit after coming into effect of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 containing a provision of repealment of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994? Issue No.(i). The question of maintainability of an application under Section-24-B of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 has been raised by the State-appellants (in both the appeals) on the ground that Section-24-B contains the provision that before approaching to the Tribunal in view of the provision of Section-24-B(1), the person aggrieved by an order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, may make an application for the redressal of his grievance and an application, if not filed within period of one year from the date of expiry of the period of two months referred in sub-section(3), an application shall not be entertained. For ready reference, the provision of Section-24-B of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is referred herein below:- “24-B. Adjudication by Tribunal – (1) The Tribunal shall have jurisdiction, power and authority to adjudicate all disputes and differences, between the Managing Committee or, as the case may be, the Governing body of any private educational institution and any teacher or employee of such institution or the State Government or any officer or authority of the said Government, relating to or connected with the eligibility, entitlement, payment or non-payment of grant-in-aid. (2) Any person, aggrieved by an order pertaining to any matter within jurisdiction of the Tribunal, may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. (2) Any person, aggrieved by an order pertaining to any matter within jurisdiction of the Tribunal, may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. (3) On receipt of an application under Sub-section (2), the Tribunal shall, if satisfied after such inquiry as it may deem necessary that the application is a fit case for adjudication by it, admit such application, but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied, it may summarily reject the application after recording its reasons : Provided that no application before the Tribunal seeking a claim of grant-in-aid against the State Government or any officer or authority of the said Government shall be admitted, unless the applicant has served a notice on the State Government or concerned officer or authority furnishing the details of the claim and a period of two months has expired from the date of receipt of the said notice by the State Government or, as the case may be, the concerned officer or authority. (4) The Tribunal shall not admit an application under Sub-section (2), unless it is made within one year from the date of expiry of the period of two months referred to in Sub-section (3). (5) The Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to any rules made by the Government, shall have power to regulate its own procedure. (6) All the proceedings before the Tribunal shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.” The factual aspect related to this issue is that the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) have stated that they have submitted representations sent through postal receipt on 25.11.2011, the xerox copy of the postal receipts were submitted before the Tribunal which fact has not been denied by the Stateappellants (in both the appeals) and hence the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that before invoking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, representations, which are required under the provision of Section-24-B(2) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, have been filed. This Court, after consideration the factual aspect of the mater, is in agreement with the finding given by the Tribunal in this regard holding therein the maintainability of an application under the provision of Section-24-B of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. Accordingly, Issue No.(i) is answered. Issue Nos.(ii) and (iii) Since both the issues are interrelated, the same are being dealt with herein below:- This issue pertains to the eligibility of the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. The respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) claim that they are entitled to get the benefit under the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 on account of the fact that the posts which were approved w.e.f. 1.8.1993 and 2.11.1993 respectively and joined on that post. Hence, the post is held to be admissible and filled up prior to 1.6.1994 and since the institution in question falls within the urban area, hence five years qualifying period has already been completed w.e.f. 1.8.1993 and 2.11.1993 respectively and by virtue of shifting of date of joining i.e. 1.6.1994, they have become eligible to get Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. This Court has referred hereinabove the provision of Section-7C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 which confers power upon the State Government to extend the benefit of grant-in-aid. Sub-section(4) of Section-7C stipulates that the benefit of grant-in-aid would be given to any private educational institution or for any post or to any person employed in any such institution after commencement of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994. The State has come out with an order known and relevant for the present case is the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. The Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 stipulates by formulating the categories of Non-Government Educational Institutions holding it eligible for consideration for being notified as Aided Educational Institutions. For the purpose of the Order, Non-Government Educational Institutions as specified in sub-para(1) of paragraph- 3 and the post in such institutions shall be classified into the following categories, namely, Category-I, Category-II and Category-III. Category-I stipulates that such Non-Government Educational Institutions and approved post in such institution which have received grant-in-aid from Government or in receipt of which grant-in-aid has been sanctioned by the Government prior to commencement of the Amendment Act. The present institution since is coming into Category-I, which is not in dispute, as such, Category-I is being discussed herein. Category-I stipulates that such Non-Government Educational Institutions and approved post in such institution which have received grant-in-aid from Government or in receipt of which grant-in-aid has been sanctioned by the Government prior to commencement of the Amendment Act. The present institution since is coming into Category-I, which is not in dispute, as such, Category-I is being discussed herein. Paragraph-8 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 stipulates that the Non- Government Educational Institutions which has been notified as an aided educational institution shall not ipso facto be eligible to receive grant-in-aid such institution will only be eligible to receive grant-in-aid towards salary cost of teaching and non-teaching post of that institutions who are eligible to receive grant-in-aid in accordance with the provision of this order, meaning thereby, merely if a Non- Government Educational Institution has been notified as an aided institution, the benefit of grant-in-aid would not be released rather for extending the aforesaid benefit, the condition stipulated under the provision of paragraph-9 of the Grant-in- Aid Order, 1994 as quoted above will have to be fulfilled. It is evident from the provision as contained in paragraph-9(1) of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 that 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. Sub-para(2) of paragraph-9(1) of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 stipulates that a teaching or a non-teaching post not covered by sub-para (1) of this para shall be treated as admissible and shall be eligible for approval subject to satisfying the following conditions:- (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. 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 paragraph- 9(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. 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 paragraph- 9(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)(i)(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. The qualifying period always relates to the incumbent, e.g., for getting the pensionary benefit applicable under rule, the minimum qualifying period of ten years is 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. Moreover, it is to be seen as to whether the completion of the period of 5 years or 3 years as the case may be would be 1.6.1994. This Court has taken into the consideration of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa & Others v. Prabhawati Padhihari wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the eligibility of a teaching and nonteaching staff is to be seen as on 1.6.1994. This Court has taken into the consideration of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa & Others v. Prabhawati Padhihari wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the eligibility of a teaching and nonteaching staff is to be seen as on 1.6.1994. Therefore, this Court, after taking into consideration the statutory provision as quoted hereinabove as also the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa & Others v. Prabhawati Padhihari, is of the view that an incumbent will be said to be entitled to get the benefit of Grant-in- Aid Order, 1994 only he fulfills the condition as on 1.6.1994. Admittedly, in the instant case, respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) have been appointed on 1.8.1993 and 2.11.1993 respectively and on shifting principle, their date of joining said to have been shifted on 1.6.1994. Hence, the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) are claiming the benefit of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 w.e.f. 1.6.1999 i.e. after completion of qualifying period of 5 years counting from 1.6.1994 which has been denied by the Tribunal by not interfering with the decision taken by the State authorities, by which, he has been given the benefit of grant-in-aid in view of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009. As has been stated hereinabove by this Court on the basis of statutory provision as also the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa & Others v. Prabhawati Padhihari that an eligibility of an incumbent who is seeking the benefit under the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 shall be seen as on 1.6.1994. However, it is admitted case of the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) that they are not eligible to get the benefit as on 1.6.1994, since they have joined on the post w.e.f. 1.8.1993 and 2.11.1993 respectively and on shifting principle, their joining were shifted to 1.6.1994. Hence, they have claimed the benefit after completion of period of 5 years i.e. w.e.f. 1.6.1999 on the grounds as stated hereinabove. Admittedly, under the Orissa Education Act, 1969, there is no statutory provision governing the field for extending the benefit of grant-in-aid rather there was executive instructions. Hence, they have claimed the benefit after completion of period of 5 years i.e. w.e.f. 1.6.1999 on the grounds as stated hereinabove. Admittedly, under the Orissa Education Act, 1969, there is no statutory provision governing the field for extending the benefit of grant-in-aid rather there was executive instructions. Hence, the legislature has taken decision to come out with a statutory provision as contained in Section-7C by virtue of Orissa Act No.13 of 1994 by inserting a provision as Section-7C making process therein to extend the benefit of grant-in-aid which shall be paid to the teaching and nonteaching staff of the educational institutions who have been brought under the fold of recognized institutions in view of the provision of Section-3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 on the basis of the orders to be enacted time to time and in pursuant thereto, the first Grant-in-Aid Order was issued in the shape of Grant-in- Aid Order, 1994 wherein provision has been made to extend the full salary cost in favour of the incumbents working under the recognized institutions in view of the provision of Section-3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. Thereafter, the Government, considering its financial implication, has brought another Grant-in- Aid Order i.e. Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 notified on 5th February, 2004 wherein a repeal clause has been inserted to the effect that the institutions, who are in receipt of the grant-in-aid, shall be deemed to be continued, as if the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 has not been repealed. Thereafter, the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008 or 2009 has come. The claim which has been put-forth by respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) that since they have completed 5 years of qualifying service as on 1.6.1999, they will entitle the benefit of the grant-in-aid in pursuant to the Grantin- Aid Order, 1994 and not on the basis of Grant- in-Aid Order, 2009. In order to answer this issue, it would be relevant to look into the effect of the repealment and for this, the provision of Section-6 of the General Clauses Act which has already been quoted hereinabove needs to be discussed in the present scenario. In order to answer this issue, it would be relevant to look into the effect of the repealment and for this, the provision of Section-6 of the General Clauses Act which has already been quoted hereinabove needs to be discussed in the present scenario. Section-6 of the General Clauses Act deals with the effect of repeal which provides that the repeal shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, meaning thereby, the effect of repeal would be, if anything has been granted in favour of anybody that cannot be taken away, since by virtue of the repealed Act, the right has said to have been accrued and if the right has been accrued, the same cannot be taken away by repealment of the provision of the statute. The effect of repealment has been discussed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Utter Pradesh and Others (supra) and Board of Control for Cricket in India (supra) and after going across the detailed discussion made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in both the judgments with respect to the effect of repeal, it would not come in the way of the benefit or right already accrued in favour of anybody under the repealed statute. In the light of this legal settled position, the factual aspect of the instant case has been assessed by this Court. Admittedly, the respondent no.1’s institution (in both the appeals) has been recognized under the provision of Section-3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 where getting the benefit of grant-in-aid with respect to certain approved posts. In the light of this legal settled position, the factual aspect of the instant case has been assessed by this Court. Admittedly, the respondent no.1’s institution (in both the appeals) has been recognized under the provision of Section-3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 where getting the benefit of grant-in-aid with respect to certain approved posts. Emphasis has been given by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) that since the institution has been given the benefit of grant-in-aid and the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) are working under the said institution, hence in view of the effect of repeal as stipulated under the provision of paragraph-4 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004, they will be held to be entitled to get the benefit of grant-in-aid by virtue of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. Hence, the emphasis has been given upon the institution. This Court, in order to answer this, has gone into the provision of Section-7C(4) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, as referred above, wherein a saving clause has been inserted under the provision of sub-section(4) of Section-7C to save the interest of such incumbents, who were getting the benefit on the basis of the executive instructions prevalent prior to enactment of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 till framing of the subsequent Orders, which reads as follows:- 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. This proviso does suggest that it is not the institution rather the post in such educational institution in respect of which grant-in-aid was being released has been decided not to be disturbed who were getting the benefit of grant-in-aid prior to commencement of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994. This proviso does suggest that it is not the institution rather the post in such educational institution in respect of which grant-in-aid was being released has been decided not to be disturbed who were getting the benefit of grant-in-aid prior to commencement of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994. It is not in dispute that in paragraph-4 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 under the repeal and saving clause, the word ‘institutions’ has been inserted, which reads as follows:- 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.” Respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) cannot be held to be entitled to get the grant-in-aid in pursuant to the provision of 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-in- Aid 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. 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 Grantin- 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-in-Aid 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 respondent No.1 (in both the appeals) 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 been repealed. Now the question would be what would be the meaning of institution, whether along with posts or without posts? Now the question would be what would be the meaning of institution, whether along with posts or without posts? If institution means without posts, certainly the private respondents would be held to be entitled to get the benefit. But if it would mean with posts, certainly they would not be entitled to get the benefit. 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. 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. Since the same have been saved and the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) are appointees 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. 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. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) has vehemently argued that a right has been created in their favour due to the saving clause by which the institution which was extended the benefit as per the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, will continue to get it and since the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) are in the same institution, hence a vested right has been accrued in their favour. This Court is not in agreement with this submission due to the reason that the word ‘vested’, as has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edition) at page-1563, means fixed; accrued; settled; absolute; complete. Having the character or given the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. Rights are ‘vested’ when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute vested rights. In Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) at page- 1397, the word ‘vested’ is defined as a tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right, vested interest. The word ‘vested’ is normally used where an immediate fixed right in present or future enjoyment in respect of a property is created. With the long usage the said word ‘vest’ has also acquired a meaning as “an absolute or indefeasible right”. It had a ‘legitimate’ or “settled expectation” to obtain right to enjoy the property etc. Such “settled expectation” can be rendered impossible of fulfillment due to change in law by the legislature. With the long usage the said word ‘vest’ has also acquired a meaning as “an absolute or indefeasible right”. It had a ‘legitimate’ or “settled expectation” to obtain right to enjoy the property etc. Such “settled expectation” can be rendered impossible of fulfillment due to change in law by the legislature. Besides this, such a “settled expectation”or the so-called “vested right” cannot be countenanced against public interest and convenience which are sought to be served by amendment of the law. Thus, “vested right” is a right independent of any contingency. Such a right can arise from a contract, statute or by operation of law. A vested right can be taken away only if the law specifically or by necessary implication provide for such a course. In the light of the definition of the “vested right”, it is evident that right accrues to person or persons attached to an institution or building or anything whatsoever, meaning thereby, if an incumbent is claiming a vested right, he is to substantiate before the court of law that the right has been created in his favour by an order passed by the competent authority in accordance with law. In the context of this position, admittedly, the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) have not been extended the benefit of grant-in-aid as per the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. Although the institution under which they are working, some of the incumbents have been extended with the benefit of grant-in-aid by virtue of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, but that does not mean that since others who are fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per the law, if given the benefit, the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) cannot claim the said benefits merely because they are working in the same institution rather they have to show the eligibility to get the benefit as per the prevalent law. The respondent no.1 (in both the appeals), on the strength of an additional affidavit, has tried to impress upon the Court that the Additional Director, Higher Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar vide its letter No.59771 dated 28.12.2004 has directed all the Principals of Non-Govt. Aided Colleges to furnish the required information in favour of the non-aided employees of the college who were appointed/recruited in due procedure by the Governing Body on or before 31.12.98 as per required workload. Aided Colleges to furnish the required information in favour of the non-aided employees of the college who were appointed/recruited in due procedure by the Governing Body on or before 31.12.98 as per required workload. The said information was directed to be received on or before 10.1.2005 positively through special messenger as per proforma enclosed to the letter. In terms thereof, the proposal was sent by covering letter dated 10.01.2005 wherein the name of respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) is at Serial Nos.13 and 14 respectively and as such, it has been contended that since the proposal has been asked by the authority of the State Government, there is no reason to deny the benefit in view of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009. This Court, after going through the aforesaid documents as annexed with the additional affidavit, is of the view that merely by asking details about one or the others teaching and non-teaching staff of the college, does not create any right and even if the information has been sought for by the authority of the State Government, the benefit cannot be said to be extended contrary to the statutory provision. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) has orally argued that their applications were pending consideration before the authority while the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 was in existence and as such, if there is any delay or laches on the part of the State authority, they cannot be made to suffer but respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) have failed to brought any record on what date they have made request before the authority. Moreover, even accepting the plea of the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) is correct, then also they cannot be entitled to get the benefit after repealment of the legislation. Respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) have also relied upon one communication issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government of Orissa, Department of Higher Education, Bhubaneswar address to the Director, Higher Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar vide letter No.39446 dated 1.6.1996 wherein it has been stated that for a post to be eligible for grant-in-aid, it must have been filled up for the full qualifying period of 5 years or three years as the case may be a regularly recruited person possessing requisite qualifications. It has further been stated therein that under the provisions of grantin- aid order, submission of application is a continuous process and as and when an institution or post in an institution qualifies for receiving grant-in-aid applications have to be submitted in the prescribed form and, therefore, it has been submitted that the intention of the aforesaid communication is very clear, even after 1.6.1994, the benefit of grant-in-aid is to be extended in favour of teaching and non-teaching staff, if completed 5 years or 3 years qualifying period as the case may be, but this contention is also not acceptable to this Court for the reason that the communication dated 1.6.1996 has been issued on 31.05.1996, the day when there was existence of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 and once Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 has been superseded by its repealment by virtue of Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004, there will be no force of the communication dated 1.6.1996. However, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-appellants (in both the appeals) has submitted that the communication dated 1.6.1996 has been recalled by the State authority, but he has not produced any document to that effect. Be that as it may, the fact remains that after repealment of the Grantin-Aid Order, 1994, during the existence period of the aforesaid order, the communication dated 1.6.1996 was issued but after its repealment by virtue of Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004, there will be no force of the communication dated 1.6.1996. As has been settled by this Court that the benefit of grant cannot be claimed as a matter of right rather the eligibility is to be seen for an incumbent as has been laid down by Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Laxmidhar Pati and Ors. (supra). Hence, applying the aforesaid ratio vis-à-vis the provision of law is stated hereinabove and according to the considered view of this Court, respondent no.1 cannot be held to be eligible to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. This Court is also discussing the orders/judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals). So far as the order rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa & Ors. This Court is also discussing the orders/judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals). So far as the order rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa & Ors. v. Prabhawati Padhihari is concerned, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to held that the eligibility is to be seen as on 1.61994 by reversing the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.9586 of 2005. Hence, the issue which has been raised by the petitioner in that writ petition as to whether she is entitled to get the benefit after 1.6.1994 was not the exact issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. However, it has been laid down therein that if an incumbent is not eligible to get the benefit of grant-in-aid as on 1.6.1994, he cannot be held to be entitled to get the same. In the instant case, the admitted case of the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) are that they became eligible to get the benefit as on 1.6.1999 and hence in view of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the Prabhawati Padhihari’s case, they are not eligible to get the benefit of grant-in-aid as per Grantin- Aid Order, 1994. So far as the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Laxmidhar Pati and Ors. (supra) is concerned, that judgment pertains to the eligibility and merely on account of the fact that the incumbent is satisfying the eligibility qualification, cannot be claim the grant-in-aid. So far as the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo (supra) is concerned, the same is also based upon the udgment in the case of Laxmidhar Pati and it has been laid down therein by a Division Bench of this Court that the eligibility is to be seen as on 1.6.1994. So far as the judgment rendered by this Court in case of Aruna Kumar Swain & Anr. (supra) is concerned, the same pertains to a case where the claim was rejected due to paucity of funds but that is not the case herein. So far as the judgment rendered by this Court in case of Aruna Kumar Swain & Anr. (supra) is concerned, the same pertains to a case where the claim was rejected due to paucity of funds but that is not the case herein. So far as the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration and Others (supra) is concerned, the same pertains to issue of shirking the responsibility of ensuring proper education in schools and colleges on the plea of lack of resources, but that is not the case herein rather the case herein is regarding the eligibility and affect of repealment of a legislation. So far as the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa & Anr. v. Sushmita Tripathy & Anr. is concerned, the same has been passed on admission but without considering the effect of repealment and it is settled that if an order on concession is being passed, which is contrary to the statutory provision, is not binding. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Mohanlal Likumal Punjabi and Others, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 628 wherein their Lordships have held at paragraph-9 which is being quoted herein below:- “9. In Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan, (1998) 6 SCC 538 , it was held that a case decided on the basis of wrong concession of a counsel has no precedent value. That apart, the applicability of the statute or otherwise to a given situation or the question of statutory liability of a person/institution under any provision of law would invariably depend upon the scope and meaning of the provisions concerned and has got to be adjudged not on any concession made. That apart, the applicability of the statute or otherwise to a given situation or the question of statutory liability of a person/institution under any provision of law would invariably depend upon the scope and meaning of the provisions concerned and has got to be adjudged not on any concession made. Any such concessions would have no acceptability or relevance while determining rights and liabilities incurred or acquired in view of the axiomatic principle, without exception, that there can be no estoppels against statute.” So far as the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.S. Yadav (supra) is concerned, the issue fell for consideration in the aforesaid case is with respect to the effect of an amendment made in the Act and in that context, the issue of vested right has been considered, but here the case is not the amendment of the Act. It is not in dispute, so far as the legal position is concerned that the vested right cannot be taken away, even by way of repealment of the Act, but question is of accruing the vested right as has been discussed hereinabove. The respondent no.1 (in both the appeals), since have not been given the benefit of grant-in-aid by virtue of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, no right has been accrued rather the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) in order to take aid of the right having been accrued in their favour merely on the basis of the fact that the institution in question has been given the benefit of grant-in-aid, but as has been discussed hereinabove, the institution includes post also and admittedly, the post upon which the grant-in-aid is claimed by the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) has not been extended the benefit with the grant-in-aid. Hence, the judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances in the instant appeals. So far as the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Ch. Gandhi is concerned, the same is with respect to the effect of the repeal and there is no dispute in the settled position of law regarding the effect of repeal as has been elaborately discussed hereinabove. So far as the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. Ch. Gandhi is concerned, the same is with respect to the effect of the repeal and there is no dispute in the settled position of law regarding the effect of repeal as has been elaborately discussed hereinabove. So far as the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. G.V.K. Girls High School is concerned, that pertains to the conferment of rights. So far as the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nathi Devi (supra) is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue related to interpretation of a statute, has been pleased to hold that in interpreting a statute, effort should be made to give effect to each and every word used by the legislature. This Court, after applying the aforesaid judgment and after going across the provision of proviso to Section-7C(4) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 read along with repeal clause as contained in paragraph-4 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004, is of the view that the word inserted in proviso to Section-7C(4) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, if read together with the provision of paragraph-4 of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004, it would be evident that it is not only institution rather the institution also includes the post. Hence, this judgment nowhere is in favour of the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals), if taken along with the factual aspect and legal position in the instant appeals. So far as order passed by this Court in F.A.O. Nos.424, 426, 614 of 2015, 154 of 2016, 75 of 2017, but this Court, after going into the factual aspect raised therein, has found that this Court has gone into the principle of equality and since the others have been given benefit, hence the order has been passed, but the issue which has been raised by the State-appellants (in both the appeals) herein has not been dealt with and it is settled that the order/judgment, if passed without taking into consideration the effect of the statutory provision, the same would not be binding, since the said order/judgment will be said to be per incuriam. This Court, while discussing the things elaborately hereinabove by dealing with the effect of repealment, has found that the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) are not entitled to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. This Court, while discussing the things elaborately hereinabove by dealing with the effect of repealment, has found that the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) are not entitled to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. The effect of repealment has not been discussed and further, it has not been taken into consideration by the coordinate Bench of this Court that if the benefit would be granted even after repealment of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, then what would be the purpose of repealment. Much emphasis has been given in these judgments that since similarly situated employees have been given the benefit, hence others must be given. But it is settled legal position that if anybody has been given benefit contrary to the statutory provision, the same would not create a right upon the others that is on the basis of principle of negative equality, since Article-14 always envisages positive equality. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj and Another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 wherein their Lordships have held at paragraph-8 which is being quoted herein below:- “8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible.” In the case of Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in AIR 2014 SC 3640 wherein their Lordships have held at paragraph-15 which is being quoted herein below:- “15. Moreso, it is also settled legal proposition that Article 14 does not envisage for negative equality. In case a wrong benefit has been conferred upon someone inadvertently or otherwise, it may not be a ground to grant similar relief to others. This Court in Basawaraj & Anr. v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746 considered this issue and held as under: “It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. (Vide: Chandigarh Administration & Anr. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. (Vide: Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jagjit Singh & Anr., AIR 1995 SC 705 ; M/s. Anand Button Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 565 ; K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 898 ; and Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 2010 SC 1937 ).” So far as the observation part of the judgment as contained in Prabhawati Padhihari’s case is concerned, according to my considered view, it does not confer any right upon the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) to get the benefit of the grant-in-aid on the basis of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that the said order passed in the case of State of Orissa & Ors. v. Prabhawati Padhihari will not come in the way to be Smt. Padhihari become subsequently eligible for whatsoever reasons and at a later point of time the State Government may consider her case and according to my considered view that observation does not confer any right upon the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) rather the State authorities after taking into consideration the aforesaid observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and taking into consideration the fact that the respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) have become eligible to get the benefit of grant-in-aid by virtue of Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009 considered it and extended the said benefit in their favour. On the basis of the detailed discussion made, this Court now is considering the finding given by the Tribunal in the judgment impugned. It is evident from the impugned judgment that the Tribunal has gone into the fact that since the institution has already been extended the benefit of grant-in-aid, the repealed provision will not be applicable but as has been dealt with hereinabove merely on account of fact if an institution has came into fold of the grant-in-aid, the incumbent holding any post in the aforesaid institution will not become eligible to get the benefit of grant-in-aid, if not eligible as per prevalent legislation. The Tribunal has also not taken into consideration the order rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa & Ors. v. Prabhawati Padhihari passed in Civil Appeal No(s).796 of 2008 in right prospective as has been discussed hereinabove. So far as the question of negative equality, the Tribunal has also not considered this aspect in the manner it should have been considered and without giving any conclusive finding to that effect as dealt with hereinabove in detail. Accordingly, Issue Nos.(ii) and (iii) are answered. 7. This Court, after making the elaborate discussion of legal as well as factual aspect as above, is of the view that the Tribunal has committed illegality in passing the orders. Hence, not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same are quashed. In the result, both the appeals stand allowed. Appeals allowed.