Page 1 of 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK F.A.O. No.219 of 2019 Bidyadhar Pradhan ..... Appellant Represented by Adv. – Mr. Sangram Jena -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Respondents Represented by Adv. – Mr. D.K. Sahoo, AGA for O.P. Nos.1 & 2 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 16.04.2026 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Respondents No.1 & 2. Perused the appeal as well as the impugned order of the learned State Education Tribunal. 3. The Applicant before the State Education Tribunal has approached this Court by filing the present appeal thereby challenging the order dated 15.01.2019 passed in G.I.A. Case No.834 of 2017. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant, at the outset, 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 Page 2 of 2. 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. 5. Learned counsel for the State-Respondent Nos.1 & 2, on the other hand, contended that the factual background of the case of the Petitioner be examined by the competent authority before applying the ratio laid down by a coordinate Bench of this Court in F.A.O. No.509 of 2014. 6. Considering the submission made by the learned counsels appearing for both the sides, this Court allows the appeal in terms of the judgment dated 19.03.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in F.A.O. No.509 of 2014 subject to the condition that the competent authority before applying the aforesaid judgment shall verify the factual background of the present case and in the event the competent authority comes to a conclusion that the factual background of present case is identical to one involved in F.A.O. No.509 of 2014, then similar benefits be extended in favour of the present Appellant as has been done in F.A.O. No.509 of 2014. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the F.A.O. stands dismissed. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis `