REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7577 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 23279 OF 2019)

(DIARY NO. 13251 OF 2017)

DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION,  ODISHA & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO .....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

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

1  for short ‘the Tribunal’

1

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:-

(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

2

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

3

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.1,080-30-

1,440-EB-30-1,800).  Merely  because  the  respondent  is

intermediate, that 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

2  (2015) 7 SCC 373

4

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.  

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

3  (1994) 2 SCC 521

5

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.

.............................................J. (L. NAGESWARA RAO)

.............................................J. (HEMANT GUPTA)

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 26, 2019.

4  (2004) 4 SCC 646

6