Supreme Court of India
DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ODISHA & ORS. versus PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO on 26 September 2019
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
ADIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ODISHA & ORS.v.
PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO
(Civil Appeal No. 7577 of 2019)
BSEPTEMBER 26, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Pay scale – Appointment of respondent having intermediateCqualification against pay-scale of Untrained Matric Teacher –Claimed pay-scale available to Trained Matric Teacher – Counselfor the State conceded before the Administrative Tribunal thatTeachers having intermediate qualification were entitled to the pay-scale available to Trained Matric Teachers – On the basis of theDconcession, the Tribunal allowed the case of the teacher – HighCourt affirmed the order of Tribunal – The respondent-teacher, inabsence of training, cannot be said to be a Trained Matric Teacherentitled for pay-scale meant for such teachers – The distinctionbetween Trained Matric Teacher and Untrained Matric Teacherwas not appreciated by courts below – The concession by StateECounsel was a concession in law and contrary to Statutory Rules,hence, not binding on the State – There cannot be any estoppelagainst law – Concession – Estoppel – Orissa Revised Scales ofPay Rules, 1989 [as amended by Orissa Revised Scales of Pay(Amendment) Rules, 1990].F
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Trained Matric Teacher is the one who hasbeen trained for the purposes of teaching. In the absence ofsuch training, the respondent cannot be said to be a TrainedGMatric Teacher entitled to the pay scale meant for such teachers.The classification based upon educational qualification for grantof higher pay scale to a trained person or a person possessinghigher qualification is a valid classification. The distinctionbetween Trained Matric Teacher and Untrained Matric Teacherhas not been appreciated by the Tribunal and the same errorH
DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ODISHA& ORS. v. PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO
was committed by the High Court as well. Therefore, the orderpassed by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court is notsustainable in law. [Paras 10, 12 and 14] [742-F; 743-A-B-F]
Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. v.Union of India & Ors.(1994) 2 SCC 521 : [1994] 1 SCR 700 ;M.P. RuralAgriculture Extension Officers Association v.State ofM.P. & Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 646 : [2004] 3 SCR 821 –relied on.
2. The concession given by the State Counsel before theTribunal was a concession in law and contrary to the statutoryrules. Such concession is not binding on the State for the reasonthat there cannot be any estoppel against law. The rules providefor a specific Grade of Pay, therefore, the concession given bythe State Counsel before the Tribunal is not binding on theappellant. [Para 11] [742-G]
Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. BalwanSingh & Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 373 : [2015] 4 SCR 616– referred to.
Case Law Reference
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7577of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2016 by the HighCourt of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P.(C) No. 21130 of 2015.
Shibashish Misra and S.Debabrat A Reddy, Advs. for theAppellants.
Bharat Sangal, Sr.Adv., Vidushi Garg, Nagarkatti Kartik Uday,Ms. Laimon Rani Boro, Ms. Babita Kushwaha, Advs. for theRespondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
740SUPREME COURT REPORTS
AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered byHEMANT GUPTA, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
8
Decisions referred to
In this index
8
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed bythe High Court of Orissa on March 3, 2016 whereby, the writ petitionfiled by the appellant challenging the order passed by the OdishaBAdministrative Tribunal[1] on February 19, 2010 remained unsuccessful.The Tribunal has directed the appellant to grant pay scale of TrainedIntermediate Arts Teacher i.e. Rs.1080/- - Rs.1800/-.
2. The respondent was appointed under the RehabilitationCAssistance Scheme bearing order dated August 06, 1988 after deathof his father Basanta Kumar Sahoo. He joined on August 10, 1988 asPrimary School Teacher in pursuance of the said order in the pay scaleof Rs.780/- - Rs.1140/- with D.A. as admissible. The respondent hasintermediate qualification at that time and had appeared for B.A.examination when he was appointed as Primary School Teacher againstDthe Matric Teachers Certificate Post. The said pay scale is payable toUntrained Teachers having Matric qualification, whereas pay scale ofRs.840/- - Rs.1240/- is the pay scale granted to Trained MatricTeachers.
3. The Orissa Revised Scales of Pay (Amendment) Rules, 1990Ewere published by the Government of Odisha on September 12, 1990amending the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989. The aforesaidAmendment Rules of 1990 laid down a separate scale of pay for allposts of Trained Matric Teachers and non-Trained Matric Teachers.The relevant clause reads as under:-F“6. In the said Rules, in the First Schedule,
(i) For the scale of pay appearing against Sl. No. 2 in Col. (4)under the heading “Revised Scales of Pay”, the following scaleof pay shall be substituted, namely;- G“Rs. 775-12-871-E.B.-14-1025”.
(ii) For the scale of pay appearing against Sl. No. 6 in Col. (4)under the heading “Revised Scales of Pay”, the following scaleof pay shall be substituted namely:- H1 for short ‘the Tribunal’
(a) Rs. 975-25—1, 150-E.B.-30-1,660 (For all posts exceptTrained Matric Teachers)”
4. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued on August 27, 1992stating the scales of pay for the Untrained Intermediate Teacher andTrained Matric Teacher. The said corrigendum reads as under:
5. The respondent claimed that he is entitled to pay scale ofRs.840/- - Rs.1240/- from the very day of his appointment and pay scaleof Rs. 1080-1800 after Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989 asamended in the year 1990. Since the said pay scale was not grantedto him, he invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal when he filed O.A.No.831(C) of 1998. The basis of argument is that he is intermediateand, thus, he is to be treated as a Trained Teacher which will entitlehim to the pay scale of Rs.1080/- - Rs.1800/-.
6. Before the learned Tribunal, the counsel for the appellantconceded that the Teachers having intermediate qualification are entitledto the scale of pay as is available to Trained Matric Teachers. On thebasis of such concession, the learned Tribunal allowed the OriginalApplication on February 19, 2010.
7. The appellant filed an application, inter alia, on the groundthat wrong submission was made by the counsel for the appellant. Suchapplication was dismissed on the ground that the remedy of the appellantwas either by filing an application of review or modification but sincesuch application has been filed after two years of the order having beenpassed by the Tribunal, the same was dismissed on the ground of lachesas well as there is no error apparent on the face of the order.Thereafter, the appellant filed the review petition which was dismissedon January 22, 2015. It is thereafter the writ petition was filed whichwas dismissed vide the order impugned in the present appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the separatepay scales are provided for Untrained Matric Teachers (Rs.975-25-1,150-E.B.-30-1,660) and for Trained Matric Teachers (Rs.1,080-30-1,440-EB-30-1,800). Merely because the respondent is intermediate, that A
B
CD
E
F
GH
Ais higher qualification than the Matric, does not make him a TrainedTeacher. Therefore, the concession given by the State counsel iserroneous concession in law and, does not bind the appellant.Reference was made to Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Societyv. Balwan Singh & Ors.[2]wherein, this Court held as under:
B“32. Generally, admissions of fact made by a counsel are bindingupon their principals as long as they are unequivocal; where,however, doubt exists as to a purported admission, the courtshould be wary to accept such admissions until and unless thecounsel or the advocate is authorised by his principal to makeCsuch admissions. Furthermore, a client is not bound by a statementor admission which he or his lawyer was not authorised to make.A lawyer generally has no implied or apparent authority to makean admission or statement which would directly surrender orconclude the substantial legal rights of the client unless such anadmission or statement is clearly a proper step in accomplishingDthe purpose for which the lawyer was employed. We hasten toadd neither the client nor the court is bound by the lawyer’sstatements or admissions as to matters of law or legalconclusions….”
(Emphasis supplied)
E9. On the other hand, it is argued that since the respondent ispossessing higher qualification and is now graduate, therefore, he isentitled to the pay scale meant for Trained Matric Teachers and thatState is bound by the concession given by its counsel before the Tribunal.
F10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find thatthe distinction between Trained Matric Teacher and Untrained MatricTeacher has not been appreciated by the Tribunal and the same errorwas committed by the High Court as well.
11. The concession given by the learned State Counsel beforeGthe Tribunal was a concession in law and contrary to the statutory rules.Such concession is not binding on the State for the reason that therecannot be any estoppel against law. The rules provide for a specificGrade of Pay, therefore, the concession given by the learned StateCounsel before the Tribunal is not binding on the appellant.
12. The Trained Matric Teacher is the one who has been trainedfor the purposes of teaching. In the absence of such training, therespondent cannot be said to be a Trained Matric Teacher entitled tothe pay scale meant for such teachers. The classification based uponeducational qualification for grant of higher pay scale to a trained personor a person possessing higher qualification is a valid classification. Ithas been so held in Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. v. Union of India &Ors.[3], wherein this Court held as under:
“9. … The nature of work may be more or less the same butscale of pay may vary based on academic qualification orexperience which justifies classification. The principle of ‘equalpay for equal work’ should not be applied in a mechanical orcasual manner. Classification made by a body of experts afterfull study and analysis of the work should not be disturbed exceptfor strong reasons which indicate the classification made to beunreasonable. Inequality of the men in different groups excludesapplicability of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ tothem….”
13. The said decision has been quoted by another Bench of thisCourt in M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association v.State of M.P. & Anr.[4], wherein this Court held as under:
“22. Furthermore, as noticed hereinbefore, a valid classificationbased on educational qualification for the purpose of grant of payhas been upheld by the Constitution Bench of this Court in P.Narasinga Rao [AIR 1968 SC 349:(1968) 1 SCR 407].”
14. Therefore, we find that the order passed by the Tribunal asaffirmed by the High Court is not sustainable in law. Consequently,the appeal is allowed. The Original Application filed by the respondentis dismissed.
15. Vide order dated July 14, 2017, the appellant has depositedRs.25,000/- with the Registry towards litigation expenses. Therespondent is permitted to withdraw the said amount.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H