# DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ODISHA & ORS v. PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO

- **Citation:** [2019] 12 S.C.R. 738
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-09-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7577 of 2019
- **Bench:** L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/director-of-elementary-education-odisha-ors-v-pramod-kumar-sahoo-33132
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Service Law:
Pay scale - Appointment of respondent having intermediate
qualification against pay-scale of Untrained Matric Teacher -
Claimed pay-scale available to Trained Matric Teacher - Counsel
for the State conceded before the Administrative Tribunal that
Teachers having intermediate qualification were entitled to the payscale available to Trained Matric Teachers - On the basis of the
concession, the Tribunal allowed the case of the teacher - High
Court affirmed the order of Tribunal - The respondent-teacher, in
absence of training, cannot be said to be a Trained Matric Teacher
entitled for pay-scale meant for such teachers - The distinction
between Trained Matric Teacher and Untrained Matric Teacher
was not appreciated by courts below - The concession by State
Counsel was a concession in law and contrary to Statutory Rules,
hence, not binding on the State - There cannot be any estoppel
against law - Concession - Estoppel - Orissa Revised Scales of
Pay Rules, 1989 [as amended by Orissa Revised Scales of Pay
(Amendment) Rules, 1990].
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Trained Matric Teacher is the one who has
been trained for the purposes of teaching. In the absence of
such training, the respondent cannot be said to be a Trained
Matric Teacher entitled to the pay scale meant for such teachers.
The classification based upon educational qualification for grant
of higher pay scale to a trained person or a person possessing
higher qualification is a valid classification. The distinction
between Trained Matric Teacher and Untrained Matric Teacher
has not been appreciated by the Tribunal and the same error
738
 [2019] 12 S.C.R. 738
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
739
was committed by the High Court as well. Therefore, the order
passed by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court is not
sustainable 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. Rural
Agriculture Extension Officers Association v. State of
M.P. & Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 646 : [2004] 3 SCR 821 -
relied on.
2. The concession given by the State Counsel before the
Tribunal was a concession in law and contrary to the statutory
rules. Such concession is not binding on the State for the reason
that there cannot be any estoppel against law. The rules provide
for a specific Grade of Pay, therefore, the concession given by
the State Counsel before the Tribunal is not binding on the
appellant. [Para 11] [742-G]
Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan
Singh & Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 373 : [2015] 4 SCR 616
- referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2015] 4 SCR 616
referred to
Para 8
[1994] 1 SCR 700
relied on
Para 12
[2004] 3 SCR 821
relied on
Para 13

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ODISHA & ORS.
v.
PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO
(Civil Appeal No. 7577 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Pay scale - Appointment of respondent having intermediate
qualification against pay-scale of Untrained Matric Teacher -
Claimed pay-scale available to Trained Matric Teacher - Counsel
for the State conceded before the Administrative Tribunal that
Teachers having intermediate qualification were entitled to the payscale available to Trained Matric Teachers - On the basis of the
concession, the Tribunal allowed the case of the teacher - High
Court affirmed the order of Tribunal - The respondent-teacher, in
absence of training, cannot be said to be a Trained Matric Teacher
entitled for pay-scale meant for such teachers - The distinction
between Trained Matric Teacher and Untrained Matric Teacher
was not appreciated by courts below - The concession by State
Counsel was a concession in law and contrary to Statutory Rules,
hence, not binding on the State - There cannot be any estoppel
against law - Concession - Estoppel - Orissa Revised Scales of
Pay Rules, 1989 [as amended by Orissa Revised Scales of Pay
(Amendment) Rules, 1990].
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Trained Matric Teacher is the one who has
been trained for the purposes of teaching. In the absence of
such training, the respondent cannot be said to be a Trained
Matric Teacher entitled to the pay scale meant for such teachers.
The classification based upon educational qualification for grant
of higher pay scale to a trained person or a person possessing
higher qualification is a valid classification. The distinction
between Trained Matric Teacher and Untrained Matric Teacher
has not been appreciated by the Tribunal and the same error
738
 [2019] 12 S.C.R. 738
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
739
was committed by the High Court as well. Therefore, the order
passed by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court is not
sustainable 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. Rural
Agriculture Extension Officers Association v. State of
M.P. & Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 646 : [2004] 3 SCR 821 -
relied on.
2. The concession given by the State Counsel before the
Tribunal was a concession in law and contrary to the statutory
rules. Such concession is not binding on the State for the reason
that there cannot be any estoppel against law. The rules provide
for a specific Grade of Pay, therefore, the concession given by
the State Counsel before the Tribunal is not binding on the
appellant. [Para 11] [742-G]
Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan
Singh & Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 373 : [2015] 4 SCR 616
- referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2015] 4 SCR 616
referred to
Para 8
[1994] 1 SCR 700
relied on
Para 12
[2004] 3 SCR 821
relied on
Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7577
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2016 by the High
Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P.(C) No. 21130 of 2015.
Shibashish Misra and S.Debabrat A Reddy, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Bharat Sangal, Sr.Adv., Vidushi Garg, Nagarkatti Kartik Uday,
Ms. Laimon Rani Boro, Ms. Babita Kushwaha, Advs. for the
Respondent.
DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ODISHA
& ORS. v. PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
740
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by
the High Court of Orissa on March 3, 2016 whereby, the writ petition
filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the Odisha
Administrative Tribunal1 on February 19, 2010 remained unsuccessful.
The Tribunal has directed the appellant to grant pay scale of Trained
Intermediate Arts Teacher i.e. Rs.1080/- - Rs.1800/-.
2. The respondent was appointed under the Rehabilitation
Assistance Scheme bearing order dated August 06, 1988 after death
of his father Basanta Kumar Sahoo. He joined on August 10, 1988 as
Primary School Teacher in pursuance of the said order in the pay scale
of Rs.780/- - Rs.1140/- with D.A. as admissible. The respondent has
intermediate qualification at that time and had appeared for B.A.
examination when he was appointed as Primary School Teacher against
the Matric Teachers Certificate Post. The said pay scale is payable to
Untrained Teachers having Matric qualification, whereas pay scale of
Rs.840/- - Rs.1240/- is the pay scale granted to Trained Matric
Teachers.
3. The Orissa Revised Scales of Pay (Amendment) Rules, 1990
were published by the Government of Odisha on September 12, 1990
amending the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989. The aforesaid
Amendment Rules of 1990 laid down a separate scale of pay for all
posts of Trained Matric Teachers and non-Trained Matric Teachers.
The relevant clause reads as under:-
"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 scale
of pay shall be substituted, namely;-
"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 scale
of pay shall be substituted namely:-
1 for short 'the Tribunal'
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
741
(a) Rs. 975-25-1, 150-E.B.-30-1,660 (For all posts except
Trained Matric Teachers)"
4. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued on August 27, 1992
stating the scales of pay for the Untrained Intermediate Teacher and
Trained Matric Teacher. The said corrigendum reads as under:
Sl. No. Name of Post
Existing Scale
of Pay 1985
Revised
Scale of Pay
5(i)
Untrained Intermediate
Teacher
840-1240
975-1660
(ii)
Trained Matric Teacher 840-1240
1080-1800
5. The respondent claimed that he is entitled to pay scale of
Rs.840/- - Rs.1240/- from the very day of his appointment and pay scale
of Rs. 1080-1800 after Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989 as
amended in the year 1990. Since the said pay scale was not granted
to 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 intermediate
and, thus, he is to be treated as a Trained Teacher which will entitle
him to the pay scale of Rs.1080/- - Rs.1800/-.
6. Before the learned Tribunal, the counsel for the appellant
conceded that the Teachers having intermediate qualification are entitled
to the scale of pay as is available to Trained Matric Teachers. On the
basis of such concession, the learned Tribunal allowed the Original
Application on February 19, 2010.
7. The appellant filed an application, inter alia, on the ground
that wrong submission was made by the counsel for the appellant. Such
application was dismissed on the ground that the remedy of the appellant
was either by filing an application of review or modification but since
such application has been filed after two years of the order having been
passed by the Tribunal, the same was dismissed on the ground of laches
as well as there is no error apparent on the face of the order.
Thereafter, the appellant filed the review petition which was dismissed
on January 22, 2015. It is thereafter the writ petition was filed which
was dismissed vide the order impugned in the present appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the separate
pay scales are provided for Untrained Matric Teachers (Rs.975-25-1,
150-E.B.-30-1,660) and for Trained Matric Teachers (Rs.1,080-301,440-EB-30-1,800). Merely because the respondent is intermediate, that
DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ODISHA & ORS.
v. PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
742
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
is higher qualification than the Matric, does not make him a Trained
Teacher. Therefore, the concession given by the State counsel is
erroneous concession in law and, does not bind the appellant.
Reference was made to Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society
v. Balwan Singh & Ors.2 wherein, this Court held as under:
"32. Generally, admissions of fact made by a counsel are binding
upon their principals as long as they are unequivocal; where,
however, doubt exists as to a purported admission, the court
should be wary to accept such admissions until and unless the
counsel or the advocate is authorised by his principal to make
such admissions. Furthermore, a client is not bound by a statement
or admission which he or his lawyer was not authorised to make.
A lawyer generally has no implied or apparent authority to make
an admission or statement which would directly surrender or
conclude the substantial legal rights of the client unless such an
admission or statement is clearly a proper step in accomplishing
the purpose for which the lawyer was employed. We hasten to
add neither the client nor the court is bound by the lawyer's
statements or admissions as to matters of law or legal
conclusions...."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. On the other hand, it is argued that since the respondent is
possessing higher qualification and is now graduate, therefore, he is
entitled to the pay scale meant for Trained Matric Teachers and that
State is bound by the concession given by its counsel before the Tribunal.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that
the distinction between Trained Matric Teacher and Untrained Matric
Teacher has not been appreciated by the Tribunal and the same error
was committed by the High Court as well.
11. The concession given by the learned State Counsel before
the Tribunal was a concession in law and contrary to the statutory rules.
Such concession is not binding on the State for the reason that there
cannot be any estoppel against law. The rules provide for a specific
Grade of Pay, therefore, the concession given by the learned State
Counsel before the Tribunal is not binding on the appellant.
2 (2015) 7 SCC 373
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
743
12. The Trained Matric Teacher is the one who has been trained
for the purposes of teaching. In the absence of such training, the
respondent cannot be said to be a Trained Matric Teacher entitled to
the pay scale meant for such teachers. The classification based upon
educational qualification for grant of higher pay scale to a trained person
or a person possessing higher qualification is a valid classification. It
has 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 but
scale of pay may vary based on academic qualification or
experience which justifies classification. The principle of 'equal
pay for equal work' should not be applied in a mechanical or
casual manner. Classification made by a body of experts after
full study and analysis of the work should not be disturbed except
for strong reasons which indicate the classification made to be
unreasonable. Inequality of the men in different groups excludes
applicability of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to
them...."
13. The said decision has been quoted by another Bench of this
Court 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 classification
based on educational qualification for the purpose of grant of pay
has 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 as
affirmed by the High Court is not sustainable in law. Consequently,
the appeal is allowed. The Original Application filed by the respondent
is dismissed.
15. Vide order dated July 14, 2017, the appellant has deposited
Rs.25,000/- with the Registry towards litigation expenses. The
respondent is permitted to withdraw the said amount.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal allowed.
3 (1994) 2 SCC 521
4 (2004) 4 SCC 646
DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ODISHA & ORS.
v. PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]