2019 (9) TMI 1695 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court rules on grant-in-aid claims post-repeal, emphasizing no right to claim benefits.

STATE OF ODISHA & ANOTHER Versus ANUP KUMAR SENAPATI & ANOTHER

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Orissa and dismissed the appeals filed by the employees. The court upheld the decision in ... Entitlement to claim grant-in-aid as admissible under the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-aid Order, 1994, after its repeal in the year 2004 by virtue of provisions contained in Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-aid Order, 2004 - private educational institution - applications not made within time limit prescribed - HELD THAT:- It is crystal clear from the scheme of the Order of 1994 that grant-in-aid has to be claimed within the period prescribed and the Director on good and sufficient cause shown may extend the period, otherwise it cannot be claimed. Even after completion of 5 years and 3 years period, as the case may be, there is no automatic accrual of right for receiving grant-in-aid. It is dependent upon the opinion of Director which educational institution/institutions shall be the best to cater to the need of the area. The employees have filed representations to claim grant-in-aid under Order of 1994 belatedly for the first time in the year 2011-12 that too according to the directions of the High Court, which were rejected. Thereafter, they approached the Tribunal by way of filing original applications, whereas on completion of the qualifying period, the institution has to inform the Director to claim grant in aid. There is no material on record that the institutions have duly applied in the particular academic year and within the time fixed for making application as per the Order of 1994 and there is nothing on the record indicating that the requisite information was furnished. No such supporting documents have been placed on record - Fact remains that there is no order placed on record whether such prayer if any made by the institution had been rejected as per the Order of 1994. The representations which have been placed on record are of 2011-12, as the grant-in-aid is annual, dependent upon economic limits and financial viability of the State Government, it was too late in the day to file the original applications or writ petitions in the year 2011-12, claiming the benefit of grant-in-aid under the Order of 1994. In case employees/institutions were desirous of obtaining grant-in-aid under the Order of 1994, they ought to have taken the steps within the reasonable time in view of the fact that it cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but it depends upon annual budget and fulfilment of various factors as contained in the provisions of the Order of 1994. The original applications filed belatedly after the repeal of the Order of 1994, could not have been entertained at all and the employees filing the applications after repeal of Order of 1994, cannot be said to be entitled for any relief owing to laches having slept over their right, if any, available under the Order of 1994. Effect of the repeal of the Order of 1994, by the Order of 2004 - HELD THAT:- In case a college is receiving grant-in-aid, with respect to a post, shall continue to receive it under the Order of 1994, however, in case it was not receiving the grant-in-aid as saving of the Order of 1994 is only entitled for block grant under Paragraph 3(1), not eligible for receiving the grant-in-aid under the Order of 1994. The saving of Order of 1994 is for a limited purpose that the institution shall continue to receive grant-in-aid concerning the posts which had been sanctioned before the repeal of the order of 1994. In the present case, it is apparent that there is no absolute right conferred under the Order of 1994. The investigation was necessary for whether grant-in-aid to be released or not. It was merely hope and expectation to obtain the release of grant in aid which does not survive after the repeal of the provisions of the Order of 1994. Given the clear provisions contained in Paragraph 4 of the Order of 2004, repealing and saving of Order of 1994, it is apparent that no such right is saved in case grant-in-aid was not being received at the time of repeal. The provisions of the Order of 1994 of applying and/or pending applications are not saved nor it is provided that by applying under the repeal of the order of 1994, its benefits can be claimed. Grant was annual based on budgetary provisions. Application to be filed timely. As several factors prevailing at the relevant time were to be seen in no case provisions can be invoked after the repeal of the order of 1994. Only the block grant can be claimed. It is apparent on consideration of Paragraph 4 of order of 2004 that only saving of the right is to receive the block grant and only in case grant in aid had been received on or before the repeal of the Order of 2004, it shall not be affected and the Order of 1994 shall continue only for that purpose and no other rights are saved. The orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court in favour of employees are not sustainable - The appeals filed by the State of Orissa are allowed and that of employees are hereby dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Entitlement of employees to claim grant-in-aid under the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-aid Order, 1994, after its repeal by the Order of 2004.2. The validity of claims made by employees for grant-in-aid under the repealed Order of 1994.3. Application of the General Clauses Act, 1897, in the context of repealed statutes and accrued rights.4. The concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement of Employees to Claim Grant-in-Aid Under the Order of 1994 After Its Repeal by the Order of 2004:The primary issue was whether employees could claim grant-in-aid as per the Order of 1994 after its repeal by the Order of 2004. The Supreme Court examined Section 7-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, and the subsequent Orders of 1994, 2004, 2008, and 2009. The court noted that the Order of 1994 was repealed by the Order of 2004, which introduced a block grant system instead of salary costs. The Order of 2004 repealed the Order of 1994 but saved the grant-in-aid for institutions already receiving it. The court concluded that institutions not receiving grant-in-aid at the time of repeal could not claim it under the Order of 1994 post-repeal.2. Validity of Claims Made by Employees for Grant-in-Aid Under the Repealed Order of 1994:The court observed that the applications for grant-in-aid were filed belatedly, in 2011-12, long after the repeal of the Order of 1994. The court emphasized that grant-in-aid could not be claimed as a matter of right and was dependent on various conditions, including budgetary provisions and economic capacity of the government. The court held that employees could not claim grant-in-aid under the repealed Order of 1994 due to the delay and lack of timely application.3. Application of the General Clauses Act, 1897, in the Context of Repealed Statutes and Accrued Rights:The court referred to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which deals with the effect of repeal. It stated that the repeal of an enactment does not affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired under the repealed enactment unless a different intention appears. The court noted that the Order of 2004's saving clause was limited to institutions already receiving grant-in-aid and did not extend to new claims under the repealed Order of 1994. The court held that mere hope or expectation to apply for a right does not constitute an accrued right under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.4. The Concept of Negative Equality Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India:The court addressed the argument of negative equality, where employees claimed parity based on benefits granted to others. The court reiterated that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality and cannot be used to perpetuate illegality or mistakes. The court cited various precedents, emphasizing that a wrong decision in favor of one party does not confer a right on others to claim similar benefits. The court held that the principle of negative equality could not be invoked to claim grant-in-aid under the repealed Order of 1994.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Orissa and dismissed the appeals filed by the employees. The court upheld the decision in Loknath Behera, affirming that claims for grant-in-aid under the repealed Order of 1994 were not sustainable. The court emphasized that grant-in-aid could not be claimed as a matter of right post-repeal and that negative equality under Article 14 could not be invoked to perpetuate benefits granted erroneously.