Grant-in-aid claims after repeal fail where no vested right accrued and negative equality cannot revive an expired scheme.

Grant-in-aid under the 1994 Odisha education scheme was a discretionary benefit dependent on prescribed conditions, approval, budgetary allocation and timely application, so no accrued or vested right survived repeal for institutions that had not secured the benefit before the 2004 Order. The saving clause protected only institutions already receiving grant-in-aid or block grant, not a mere expectation of future application, and the principle underlying Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not preserve such uncrystallised claims. Parity and negative equality also failed because Article 14 cannot be used to extend an erroneous benefit granted in other cases. The employees' claims were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an entitlement to grant-in-aid under the 1994 Order survived its repeal so as to permit belated claims after the repeal; (ii) Whether parity or negative equality could sustain the employees' claims despite the repeal.

Issue (i): Whether an entitlement to grant-in-aid under the 1994 Order survived its repeal so as to permit belated claims after the repeal.

Analysis: Grant-in-aid under the statutory scheme was not an automatic or absolute benefit. Under Section 7-C of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 and the 1994 Order, the benefit depended on fulfilment of multiple conditions, approval by the Director, budgetary allocation, and timely application. The repealing and saving clause in the 2004 Order saved only those institutions already receiving grant-in-aid or block grant, and did not preserve a mere hope or expectation of applying later. Applying the principle underlying Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, only an accrued or vested right survives repeal, not a mere liberty to seek a discretionary benefit.

Conclusion: No enforceable right to claim grant-in-aid survived the repeal for employees who had not secured the benefit before repeal; the claim under the 1994 Order was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether parity or negative equality could sustain the employees' claims despite the repeal.

Analysis: Equality under Article 14 does not extend to perpetuating an illegality or repeating an erroneous benefit granted in other cases. A wrong order in favour of some employees could not create a legal right in favour of others when the substantive entitlement itself had not accrued and the repealed scheme no longer supported fresh claims. Negative equality was therefore unavailable.

Conclusion: The claims could not be upheld on parity or negative equality grounds.

Final Conclusion: The employees' applications and writ claims were unsustainable, while the State's challenge succeeded and the earlier reliefs granted by the Tribunal and High Court were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A discretionary grant tied to timely application, administrative scrutiny, and budgetary limits does not create an accrued or vested right that survives repeal unless the repealing instrument expressly preserves it; equality cannot be invoked to replicate a benefit granted in error.

---