Del. HC Stresses Mandatory Legal Assistance to Preserve Fairness and Integrity of Criminal Trials  ||  Supreme Court: Delhi High Court Ruling upheld on Taekwondo National Sports Federation Recognition  ||  SC: Blockchain-Based Digitisation of Land Records Necessary to Reduce Property Document Litigation  ||  Supreme Court to NCLT : Limit Power to Decide Intellectual Property Title Disputes under IBC  ||  Bombay HC: Railway Employee With Valid Privilege Pass is Bona Fide Passenger Despite Missing Entries  ||  Delhi High Court: Mere Pleadings Made To Prosecute or Defend a Case Do Not Amount To Defamation  ||  Delhi High Court: Asking an Accused To Cross-Examine a Witness Without Legal Aid Vitiates The Trial  ||  Delhi High Court: Recruitment Notice Error Creates No Appointment Right Without Vacancy  ||  Supreme Court: Subordinate Legislation Takes Effect Only From its Publication in The Official Gazette  ||  Supreme Court: DDA Must Adopt a Litigation Policy To Screen Cases and Avoid Unnecessary Filings    

Director of Elementary Education, Odisha & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar Sahoo - (Supreme Court) (26 Sep 2019)

Concession given by State Counsel before Tribunal contrary to statutory rules is not binding as there cannot be any estoppel against law

MANU/SC/1329/2019

Service

The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court whereby, the writ petition filed by the Appellant challenging the order passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal remained unsuccessful. The Tribunal has directed the Appellant to grant pay scale of Trained Intermediate Arts Teacher i.e. Rs.1080- Rs.1800.

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 Original Application. 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. 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.

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. Therefore, the concession given by the State counsel is erroneous concession in law and, does not bind the appellant.

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.

The Trained Matric Teacher is the one who has been trained for the purposes of teaching. In the absence 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. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.

Tags : PAY-SCALE   GRANT   DIRECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved