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

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 738 · Decided: 26-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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 pay-
scale 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.