Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.215 of 2018 State of Orissa and another and others ..... Appellants Represented by Adv. – Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC M/s.P.K. Mohanty -versus- Bankanidhi Rout and another ..... Respondents Represented by Adv. – H.B. Dash CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 10.07.2026 Order No. 13. Misc. Case No. 298 of 2018 and I.A. No.1245 of 2019 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for both sides. Perused the grounds taken in the condonation delay application. 3. The subject matter of this application (I.A No.1245 of 2019 is substantially similar to the one in CMAPL No.216 of 2020, wherein similar application in I.A No.95 of 2020 having been favoured, the dismissal order has been recalled, argues counsel for the applicants. He has also placed on record a copy of this Court’s order in Nabakrishna Mishra v. State of Odisha, CMAPL No.216 of Page 2 of 4. 2020 to vouch his submission. Submission vouched. 4. In the above circumstances, application (Misc. Case No. 298 of 2018) is allowed and delay is condoned subject to the applicant paying a cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) to be paid before the Juvenile Justice Fund managed by the Member Secretary, Odisha State Legal Services Authority within a week. The request for restoration of FAO No.215 of 2018 by recalling order dated 15.10.2019 is accorded. As a consequence, the main matter (FAO No.215 of 2018 is restored to Board for consideration afresh. I.A No.1245 of 2019 is, accordingly, favoured. 5. Accordingly, both the Interlocutory Applications are disposed of. FAO No.215 of 2018 2. Heard the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State- Appellants as well as learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Perused the appeal as well as the impugned order of the learned State Education Tribunal. 3. The Respondents before the State Education Tribunal has approached this Court by filing the present appeal thereby challenging the order dated 13.11.2017 passed in G.I.A. Case No.1007 of 2012. 4. Learned counsel for the State-Appellants, at the outset, submitted that initially a GIA case was preferred by the Respondents before the learned Tribunal with a prayer to set aside the order of rejection and to approve the appointment of the said applicant-Respondents as per Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 and to Page 3 of 4. release the grant-in-aid accordingly. Learned counsel for the State- Appellants submitted that such GIA case has been erroneously disposed in favour of the Respondents vide the impugned judgment dated 18.08.2017. Learned counsel for the State-Appellants submitted that the Respondents are in no way eligible to get such grant-in-aid and that no such recommendation was ever made in their favour by the Competent Authority. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents, at this stage, contended that the subject matter of the dispute in the present appeal is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by a coordinate Bench of this Court in State of Odisha v. Ratnakar Mohapatra decided in F.A.O. No.509 of 2014 vide judgment dated 19.03.2025. He further contended that such judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.6943 of 2026 vide judgment dated 25.03.2026. 6. Considering the submission made by the learned counsels appearing for both the sides, while dismissing the present appeal, this court directs that the State-Appellants shall re-consider the case of the Respondents in terms of the judgment dated 19.03.2025 of the Co-ordinate Bench in State of Odisha v. Ratnakar Mohapatra, which was confirmed in appeal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and particularly, in terms of the direction given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the event the Respondents are found to be eligible to receive such Grant-In-Aid and that there is a recommendation in their favour, necessary consequential order(s) be passed in accordance with law, within a period of three months. Page 4 of 4. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the F.A.O. stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Sisir Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT