The respondent had been appointed under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme bearing order dated August 06, 1988 after the 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 DA. The respondent had appeared for B.A examination when he was appointed as a primary school teacher. The pay scale is payable to Untrained Teachers having Matric qualification, whereas pay scale of Rs.840 – Rs. 1240 was the pay scale granted to Trained Matric Teachers. The Orissa Revised Scales of Pay (Amendment) Rules, 1990 were published by the Government of Odisha 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.
Now 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. The above said pay scale was not granted to him, so invoked the jurisdiction of Odisha Administrative Tribunal and claimed that he is to be treated like a trained teacher and that will entitle him to the pay scale of 1080-1800. Before the Tribunal, the counsel for the Director of Elementary Education, Odisha (Appellant) argued 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 respondent’s plea on February 19, 2010.
Subsequently, the appellant filed an application on the ground that the wrong submission was made by the counsel for the appellant. The same was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed a review petition which was dismissed in January 2015. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed before the Orissa High Court which was dismissed leading to the present appeal in Supreme Court.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the separate pay scales are provided for Untrained Matric Teachers and for Trained Matric Teachers. Merely because the respondent is intermediate, that is higher qualification than the Matric, does not make him a Trained Teacher and not entitled him for above said pay scale. Therefore, the concession given by the State counsel was an erroneous concession in law and, does not bind the appellant.
The Court after hearing the parties held that the distinction between Trained Matric Teacher and Untrained Matric Teacher had not been appreciated by the Tribunal and High Court as well.
Supreme Court Findings:
The concession was 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.
Therefore, the Court ruled that the order passed by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court is not sustainable in law and allowed the appeal. Therefore, an erroneous concession on law made by a lawyer will not bind the client, the Supreme Court ruled.