Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.189 of 2019 M.C. of Panchayat High School ..... Appellant Represented by Adv. - Jagabandhu Sahu -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Respondents Represented by Adv. – Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 10.07.2026 Order No. 03. I.A. No.111 of 2026 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. This is an application with a prayer for condonation of delay by filing of the FAO. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that their exist delay of 22 days in preferring the FAO at the instance of the Appellant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for Respondents-State. 5. On perusal on record it appears that at the time of filing of the FAO there was a delay of 22 days. However, such application was not accompanied with any application for condonation of delay. The present application for condonation of delay was filed on 04.02.2026. Therefore, the delay continued till 04.02.2026. Page 2 of 4. 6. Learned counsel for the State objected to the condonation of delay on the ground that since the application for condonation of delay was not filed along with the FAO, the limitation continues till filing of such application on 04.02.2026. As such it was contended that there exist a delay several years and which has not been properly explain on such ground, learned counsel for the State objected to the condonation of delay. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides and on a careful examination of the grounds taken in the limitation application. Further taking into consideration the fact that the similar case, this Court has already disposed of the appeals keeping in view the judgment of the coordinate Bench in Ratnakar Mohapatra v. State of Odisha as well as the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is inclined to condone the delay, subject to the Applicant paying a cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred) to be paid before the Juvenile Justice Fund managed by the Member Secretary, Odisha State Legal Services Authority within a week. 8. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of. FAO No.189 of 2019 9. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents. Perused the appeal as well as the impugned order of the learned State Education Tribunal. 10. The Applicants before the State Education Tribunal has approached this Court by filing the present appeal thereby Page 3 of 4. challenging the order dated 22.12.2018 passed in G.I.A. Case No.55 of 2018. 11. Learned counsel for the Appellants, 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 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. 12. Learned counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, vehemently objected to the prayer made by the Appellants in the present appeal. He further contended that the Appellants were not eligible to get such grant-in-aid and that no such recommendation was made in her favour by the Competent Authority. He further submitted that, in the event, this court directs the Respondents to re-examine the case of the Appellants with regard to her eligibility and recommendation, as has been directed by the Coordinate Bench in FAO No.509 of 2014 and a batch as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its final judgment, and after such verification to pass necessary consequential order therein, he will have no objection to the same. 13. 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 and batch subject to the condition that the competent authority before applying the aforesaid judgment shall verify the factual background of the present case as Page 4 of 4. well as the eligibility and entitlement of the Appellants as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while deciding SLP(C) No.6943 of 2026 vide order dtd.25.03.2026 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 and batch and Appellants satisfies the eligibility and entitlement as directed by the coordinate Bench eventually confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, then similar benefits be extended in favour of the present Appellants as has been done in F.A.O. No.509 of 2014. 14. With the aforesaid observation, the F.A.O. stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Sisir Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT