TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Civil Appeal No. 7295 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8343 of 2019) - - - Dated:- 16-9-2019 - Civil Appeal No. 7298 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29313 of 2018), Civil Appeal No. 7301 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 32409 of 2018), Civil Appeal No. 7296 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16964 of 2018), Civil Appeal No. 7297 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17416 of 2018), Civil Appeal No. 7304 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 22309 of 2019, Arising out of Diary No. 31807 of 2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 7299-7300 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 31110-31111 of 2018), Civil Appeal No. 7302 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4261 of 2019) and Civil Appeal No. 7303 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6708 of 2019) Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer And M.R. Shah JJ. JUDGMENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determined by the State Government: Provided that pending framing of such rule or issue of order, the State Government may, without prejudice to such rule or order, direct that private educational institutions which were receiving grant-in-aid and the posts in such educational institutions in respect of which grant-in-aid was being released shall continue to be paid such amount as grant-in-aid as was being paid to them immediately prior to commencement of the Odisha Education (Amendment) Act, 1994. (4-a) The grant-in-aid to be borne by the State Government on account of placement of a teacher in an aided educational institution receiving University Grants Commission scales of Pay under the Career Advancement Scheme, shall be limited to the extent as may be admissible by computing the period of service rendered by him against an approved post with effect from the date of completion of five years of service against such approved post: Provided that nothing in this Subsection shall be construed as to affect the seniority or any other conditions of service of such a teacher. (4-b) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the purpose or meeting part or whole of the salary costs shall be disbursed directly to employees concerned and to refund any excess inadmissible payment that may have been made. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, rule, executive order or any judgment, decree or order of any court, the private Educational Institutions covered under clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (5) recognized after the 31 s t March, 2008 shall not be entitled for any Grant-in-aid from the State Government save as provided in subsection (9). (9) The private Educational Institutions referred to in clause (b) of subsection (5) located in a Grama Panchayat or in a Municipality, which is first recognized after the 31st March 2011 shall not be entitled for any Grant-in-aid from the State Government. (emphasis supplied) It is apparent from the provisions contained in Section 7-C( 1) that the aid to be provided by the Government shall be within the limits of its economic capacity and for that purpose money had to be set apart annually to be disbursed to private Educational Institution. Mere fact that an institution has been recognised under the Act, shall not entitle a priva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sible on the basis of workload and prevalent yardstick, the decision of the Director shall be final. B Category II (i) Colleges imparting instructions in and presenting regular candidates for the B.A., B.Sc. or B.Com. Examinations with or without Honours of any of the Universities which have been functioning regularly for five years or more by the 1st June 1994 after obtaining Government concurrence or recognition and affiliation of any University or for three years or more if such institution is located in an educationally backward district, which has not been notified as an Aided Educational Institution and has not received grant in aid from Government for any post. (ii) Higher Secondary Schools and Junior Colleges conducting courses in Arts, Science and Commerce which have been functioning regularly for five years or more by the 1st June, 1994 after obtaining Government concurrence or recognition and affiliation of the Council, or for 3 years or more if such an institution is located in any educationally backward district, but which have not been notified as Aided Educational Institution and have not received grant-in-aid from Government for any post. C Cat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Director had to select the educational institution/institutions on considerations of average enrolment during the three preceding years; performance of the institution; availability of infrastructural facilities; maintenance of discipline and academic standards; and availability of Government or Aided Educational Institution nearby. It is not a matter of right that the institution is entitled to claim grant-in-aid. The provision for grant-in-aid is made in budget academic year wise. Besides, there are other requirements as specified in Paragraph 5 of the Order of 1994, such as, the educational institution has run continuously; maintained correct record of admissions and attendance of students; accounts of receipts and expenditure and acquittance rolls of salary; and other allowances paid to teaching and nonteaching employees of the institution. The educational institution has a Governing Body duly constituted and approved under relevant rules. The Governing Body of the educational institution has applied in the prescribed form complete in all respects and in accordance with the procedure laid down in the said Order. The educational institution has fulfilled all the criteria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere are more Aided Higher Secondary Schools/ Junior Colleges than one for every 50,000 population subject to a minimum of one. (b) In case of a College, there is already one aided Degree College in that Block or if the Institution is located in an urban area, there is one Aided College for every one lakh population subject to a minimum of one. NOTE An educational institution conducting B.A., B.Sc. or B.Com. Degree Courses and Junior College or Higher Secondary Courses shall, for the purposes of this Para, be treated as two separate institutions. 4. As per the provisions contained in Paragraph 9(1) of the Order of 1994, a teaching or nonteaching post in Category I institution shall be deemed to be an approved post for which grant-in-aid has been sanctioned at any time before insertion of Section 7-C. The post which is not covered by Paragraph 9(1), shall be eligible for approval inter alia subject to conditions that the post was admissible as per the work-load and the prevalent yardstick before insertion of Section 7-C. A post in an Educational Institution falling in Category II was also admissible inter alia as per workload and yardstick prescribed vide Annexure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose. (2) No person shall be eligible to receive grant-in-aid against an aided post unless (i) he has been lawfully and validly appointed to that post by the competent authority in accordance with the law, rules, and instructions in force at the time of his appointment and has been continuing to hold that post on and beyond the date of eligibility of the post to receive grant-in-aid; and (ii) he possessed educational qualifications and experience required for holding that post at the time of his recruitment or on the date the post was admissible to grant-in-aid, whichever is later. 8. It is apparent from the provisions that grant-in-aid cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely on completion of the prescribed period. It is dependent upon fulfilment of various conditions. The Director is competent to examine the case concerning the post filled up before 1.6.1994. Moreover, it is discretionary to avail the benefit of grant in aid. There is no compulsion for the institution to apply for it. 9. The Government considering the financial constraint has decided to repeal the Order of 1994 substituting it by Order of 2004 with effect from 5.2.2004, promul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aph 4 of the Order of 2004 is extracted hereunder: 4. Repeal and saving (1) The Odisha (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges, and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 is hereby repealed, save for the purposes mentioned in sub-para (1) of para 3. (2) Notwithstanding the repeal under sub-para (1), the private educational institutions which are in receipt of any grant-in-aid from Government under the Order so repealed immediately before the date of commencement of this Order shall continue to receive such grant-in-aid, as if the Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 had not been repealed. The Order of 1994 has been repealed save for the purposes mentioned in Paragraph 3(1). Paragraph 4(2) of the Order of 2004 contains provisions concerning private educational institutions which are in receipt of any grant-in-aid under the Order so repealed, shall continue to receive the same. 11. Later on, the State Government has promulgated grant-in-aid Order of 2008 notified with effect from 7.1.2009. The Order of 2004 has been repealed with certain savings. The eligibility of educational institutions is dealt with in Paragraph 3 of the Order of 2004. The eligibility crit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ligibility, the said qualifying period shall be computed from the date of revival. *** *** *** 16. Components and admissibility of Block Grant (1) The Block Grant payable to the Non-Government Educational Institution under paragraph 9 shall be a fixed sum of Grant-in-aid, which shall be determined at the rate of 40% of the emoluments calculated at the initial of the existing time scale of pay applicable to the employees including existing. Dearness Pay and existing Dearness Allowance as admissible prospectively from the date of Notification of the Grant-in-aid Order, 2008 in favour of the teaching and nonteaching employees of the educational institution who have become eligible to receive Grant-in-aid by 1st day of June 2003. (2) The balance emoluments including Dearness Pay and Dearness Allowance after payment under sub-para. (1) shall be borne by the concerned Governing Body of the Aided Education Institution. *** *** *** 20. Repeal and Saving (1) The Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-aid Order, 2004 hereinafter referred to as the Grant-in-aid order is hereby repealed, save for the purposes of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he institution receiving Block Grant in the manner provided in the Orders of 1994 and 2004, shall continue to receive the same. 12. Thereafter, Order of 2009 has been promulgated, notified and implemented with effect from 6.6.2009, containing various provisions in Paragraph 3 concerning eligible educational institutions, admissibility of the Block Grant is contained in Paragraph 4 and rate and disbursement of Block Grant as per Paragraph 5. Under the Order of 2009, the Block Grant payable shall be a fixed sum of grant-in-aid, which shall be determined by taking into account the initial basic pay at the pre-revised time scale of pay plus 7 increments plus Dearness Allowance at the rate of 41% as on 1.1.2004 for teaching and nonteaching employees of such institutions. The determination of the Block Grant shall be within the economic capacity of the Government. It is apparent from the aforesaid Orders promulgated from time to time under the provisions of Section 7-C of the Act that initially the Government made the provisions of full cost salary in the Order of 1994. It was changed to Block Grant as specified in the Order of 2004. The Block Grant was as per criteria changed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision in Loknath Behera deserves to be set aside. The employees were entitled to approval of their appointment and payment of grant-in-aid in terms of Order of 1994. The Order of 1994 contains long lasting commitment towards extending the grant-in-aid benefits to the educational institutions. The communication of the Higher Education Department, Government of Odisha dated 7.10.2017 indicate that grant-in-aid can be claimed and there is continuing eligibility notwithstanding the repeal of the provisions of the Order of 1994. There is no dispute concerning the method of selection and qualification of the respondents to occupy the respective posts. Thus, after completion of the qualifying period, the grant-in-aid has been rightly ordered to be released. An office order was passed on 5.7.2011, informing the respondents that they were approved for payment of 40% of Block Grant in terms of Order of 2008. Thereafter, cases were filed before the Tribunal. As some of the colleges are located in educationally backward districts, it would not be appropriate to deny the payment of a benefit under the Order of 1994. Similar benefits have been granted to a large number of colleges by the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 1994, the Director has to examine each case individually. In terms of Paragraph 5(2)(v), the Director has to ascertain primary conditions i.e., number of institutions existing in the area. The Director shall select educational institution within the permissible economic limits considering the educational needs of the area, average enrolment within preceding three years, average number of students, performance of the institution in the examination, availability of infrastructural facilities, maintenance of discipline and academic standards, ratio of population vis-a-vis to number of institutions and availability of Government or Aided Educational Institution in the nearby area. The educational institution must have been imparting instruction regularly following the regulations of the University or the Council as the case may be; the Educational Institution has not refused to conduct an examination of the Council or University as the case may be, courses run are only as per the recognition or affiliation. 17. A Non-Government Educational Institution eligible to be and desirous of being notified as an Aided Educational Institution, has to apply in Form A. The application shall be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere 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. 20. In our opinion, the prayer made to release grant-in-aid under the Order of 1994 after its repeal was misconceived and would not be possible for any Government within the economic capacity to release the grant-in-aid retrospectively. Delay by itself defeats the right, if any, to claim the grant-in-aid which is dependent upon the option of the institution to apply for it. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e this Act, or any 1 [Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed. The provisions contained in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act stipulate that by the repeal of ena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lanka Insurance Co. v. Ranasinghe, (1964) 1 All ER 457, p.462 : 1964 AC 541 (PC) [Interpretation of section 6(3). Ceylon Interpretation Ordinance, 1900]; Isha Valimohamad v. Haji Gulam Mohamad, AIR 1974 SC 2061, p. 2065 : (1974) 2 SCC 484; M.S. Shivananda v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1980 SC 77, p. 81 : (1980) 1 SCC 149; Kanaya Ram v. Rajinder Kumar, (1985) 1 SCC 436, p. 441 : AIR 1985 SC 371 ; Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1989 SC 1614, p. 1623 : 1989 (2) SCC 557; Vinod Gurudas Raikar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1991 SC 2156, p. 2159 : (1991) 4 SCC 333; P.V. Mohammad Barmay Sons v. Director of Enforcement, AIR 1993 SC 1188, p.1192 : (1992) 4 JT 565; Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH v. Steel Authority of India, JT 1999 (8) 66, pp.98, 108 : AIR 1999 SC 3923, p. 3942; Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amrit Lal Co., AIR 2001 SC 3580, p.3589 : (2001) 8 SCC 397. The LORD CHANCELLOR S (LORD HERSCHELL S) observations in an earlier Privy Council case, that mere right to take advantage of an enactment without any act done by an individual towards availing himself of that right cannot property be deemed a right accrued Abbot v. Minister of Land, (1895) AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for getting the right and cases where the Act, without anything being further done by the claimant confers the right. In the former class of cases, it would be a right acquired after the necessary step is taken whereas in the latter class of cases it would be a right accrued by mere force of the Act. *** *** *** The right of a tenant, who has the land for a certain number of years and who has personally cultivated the same for that period to be deemed to be protected tenant under the provisions of a statute has been held to be an accrued right which will survive the repeal of the statute Sakharam v. Manikchand, AIR 1963 SC 354 : 1962 (2) SCR 59.. Similarly, a right conferred by an Act that every lease shall be deemed to be for a period of ten years is a right acquired and will be unaffected by repeal of the Act Hiralal v. Nagindas, AIR 1966 SC 367 : 1964 (6) SCR 773. For other vested rights in the context of landlord and tenant, see Ishverlal v. Motibhai, AIR 1966 SC 459 : 1966 (1) SCR . But the socalled right of a statutory tenant to protection against eviction under a Control of Eviction Act is mere advantage and not a right in the real sense and does not continu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment for acquiring a right to land or other property and cannot be said to have been acquired or accrued until a decree is passed and does not survive if the Act is repealed before passing of the final decree Nirmala Devi v. Renuka, AIR 1973 MP 120 approved in Krishna Dass Agarwal v. Kanhaiyalal, AIR 1996 SC 3464: 1996 (9) SCC 488. The right of a Government servant to be considered for promotion in accordance with existing rules is not a vested right and does not survive if the Government takes a policy decision not to fill up the vacancy pending revision of the rules and the revised rules with repeal the existing rules do not make him eligible for promotion Ramulu (Dr.) v. S. Suryaprakash Rao (Dr.), AIR 1997 SC 1803, p.1808: 1997 (3) SCC 59. General savings of rights accrued, and liabilities incurred under a repealed Act by force of section 6, General Clauses Act, are subject to a contrary intention evinced by the repealing Act. Karam Singh v. Pratap Chand, AIR 1964 SC 1305, p. 1309 (para 10) : (1964) 5 SCR 647 ; Ishverlal v. Motibhai, AIR 1966 SC 459, p.466 : 1966 (1) SCR 367 In case of a bare repeal, there is hardly any room for a contrary intention; By a subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse, in this case, was taken to section 6, General Clauses Act for holding that a person's liability for an offence under section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 continued even after its repeal. In Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. v. Shah Sadiq and Sons, (1987) 3 SCC 516, p.524: AIR 1986 SC 1217. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act was again applied to continue the right of setoff accrued under section 24(2) of the 1922 Act after its repeal by the 1961 Act. [Note: For convenience, the cases/citations in the extracts has been renumbered.] 24. It is apparent from the aforesaid discussion that what is unaffected by the repeal of a statute is a right acquired or accrued and not mere hope or expectation of or liberty to apply for acquiring a right. There is a distinction in making an application for acquiring a right. If under some repealed enactment, a right has been given, but on investigation in respect of a right is necessary whether such right should be or should not be given, no such right is saved. Right to take advantage of a provision is not saved. After repeal, an advantage available under the repealed Act to apply and obtain relief is not a right which is sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of repeal is to obliterate the Act from the statutory books, except for certain purposes as provided under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Repeal is not a matter of mere form but is of substance. Therefore, on repeal, the earlier provisions stand obliterated/abrogated/wiped out wholly i.e. pro tanto repeal (vide Dagi Ram Pindi Lall v. Trilok Chand Jain, (1992) 2 SCC 13; Gajraj Singh v. STAT, (1997) 1 SCC 650; Property Owners Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 4 SCC 455 and Mohan Raj v. Dimbeswari Saikia, (2007) 15 SCC 115). 24. Thus, there is a clear distinction between repeal and suspension of the statutory provisions and the material difference between both is that repeal removes the law entirely; when suspended, it still exists and has operation in other respects except wherein it has been suspended. Thus, a repeal puts an end to the law. A suspension holds it in abeyance. 28. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Board of Control of Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Private Limited, (2018) 6 SCC 287, wherein decision rendered in State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh, AIR 1955 SC 84, has been relied upon while holding that when the repeal is foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not exist, negative equality when the right does not exist, cannot be claimed. In Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, it was held thus: 8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006) 3 SCC 581 and Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 SCC 455.) In Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, (2010) 11 SCC 455, it was observed thus: 11. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Laungia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 P H 54, in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court while relying upon State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC 330, observed as under: 16. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that when the other candidates were appointed in the post against dereserved category, the same benefit should also be extended to the appellants. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equalities. In-State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC 330 it was held as under (SCC p. 337, para 15) 15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly, that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. (See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P, (1996) 7 SCC 426; Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3 SCC 321; Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. DG, Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh, (1999) 3 SCC 494; State of Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal, (1999) 9 SCC 240; Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. (NCT of D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality and if the State had committed a mistake, it cannot be forced to perpetuate the said mistake. In State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, it was observed: 56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745, Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 3 SCC 548, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 164, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P., (2006) 3 SCC 581, Krishan Bhatt v. State of J K, (2008) 9 SCC 24, State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh, (2009) 5 SCC 65 and Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal, (2010) 2 SCC 422) 31. 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, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
