The State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati
Background
This was a batch of connected civil appeals (led by this one, Civil Appeal No. 7295 of 2019) concerning employees of non-government colleges and schools in Odisha who claimed they were entitled to "grant-in-aid" benefits under the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-aid Order, 1994, even after that scheme was repealed and replaced by a 2004 order (itself later replaced by a 2008 order). Tribunals and the Odisha High Court had ruled in favour of the employees in related matters, holding that rights accrued under the 1994 Order survived its repeal. The State of Odisha challenged these rulings before the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined the savings clause in the 2004 repealing order and found it preserved only a narrow entitlement, the right to receive a "block grant" already due before the repeal, and did not preserve any broader right to grant-in-aid benefits under the old 1994 scheme going forward. The Court also rejected employees' reliance on "equality" arguments based on other institutions having wrongly received the benefit, reaffirming the settled principle that Article 14 of the Constitution does not permit "negative equality": a mistake or illegality benefiting one party cannot be used to compel its repetition for others. On this basis, the Court approved the State's position (as earlier taken in the Lok Nath Behera case) and held that the Tribunal/High Court orders favouring employees were unsustainable. The State's appeals were allowed and the connected appeals filed by employees were dismissed, with parties bearing their own costs.
Lesson Learnt
When a government scheme or policy is repealed, the benefits it conferred generally do not survive unless the repealing law specifically preserves them, and courts will not extend a benefit to someone merely because it was mistakenly or wrongly given to someone else in a similar position.