MUSLEMIN MAHAMMAD vs STATE OF ODISHA — C.A. No. 3904/2026
Case under Service Laws : Promotion, Seniority, Payment of Salary, Bonus, Provident Fund, Service Benefits, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Pay Scales, Transfer Section XI-A. Status: DISPOSED.
CNR: SCIN010069432026
Filing Date
03-Feb-2026
Registration No
C.A. No. 3904/2026
Diary Number
6943/2026
Order Date
25-Mar-2026
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Leave Granted & Disposed off
Data as of 10-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MUSLEMIN MAHAMMAD
Adv. SUBHASISH MOHANTY
Respondent(s)
STATE OF ODISHA
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
FRESH
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-Mar-2026 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 24-Mar-2026 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 18-Mar-2026 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 13-Mar-2026 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 23-Feb-2026 | FRESH |
Orders in this case
Supreme Court Hearing Summary This document contains hearing records from the Supreme Court of India. The most significant case is Muslemin Mahammad & Ors. v. State of Odisha, which involves approximately 132 education-related matters regarding Grant-in-Aid (GIA) benefits under the 1994 scheme. Key Outcome (March 25, 2026): The Supreme Court dismissed appeals filed by the State of Odisha while disposing of appeals filed by private persons (employees and institutions) as follows: 1. State's appeals dismissed - No interference with High Court's order dated March 19, 2025 2. Private persons' appeals disposed of - To be handled per the High Court's directions 3. Verification required - State authorities directed to verify whether employees/institutions received prior recommendations before the GIA Order 1994 repeal (February 5, 2004) 4. Deadline: State to complete verification and pass appropriate orders within 6 months from the order date High Court's Reasoning: The High Court held that the landmark judgment *State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati* (2019) does not create an absolute bar on GIA benefits where: - Eligible employees/institutions received recommendations before GIA Order 1994 repeal - Similar claims were previously allowed by courts without interference by the apex court - Earlier review and curative petitions challenging GIA benefits were rejected Next Steps: - The matter is now remanded to State authorities for verification and appropriate orders - Multiple related SLPs were either disposed of, dismissed as withdrawn, or listed for subsequent hearings This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts