Case: DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ODISHA DIRECTOR Vs. SRI PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO

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:table5. 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.1,080-30- 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. (2015) 7 SCC 373 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 lawyers 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.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. (1994) 2 SCC 521 , 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. (2004) 4 SCC 646 , 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]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.(1994) 2 SCC 521  , wherein this Court held as… 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 beapplied 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….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. (2004) 4 SCC 646  , wherein this Court held asFurthermore, 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  ].Therefore, we find that the order passed by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court is not sustainable in law.