Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Director of Elementary Education, Odisha against the order of the Orissa High Court which had upheld the Odisha Administrative Tribunal's direction to grant the respondent, Pramod Kumar Sahoo, the pay scale of a Trained Intermediate Arts Teacher (Rs.1080-1800). The respondent was appointed as a Primary School Teacher in 1988 under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme after his father's death. He possessed intermediate qualification and had appeared for B.A. examination at the time of appointment. He was appointed against a Matric Teachers Certificate Post and was initially granted the pay scale of Rs.780-1140, which was for untrained teachers with matric qualification. The Orissa Revised Scales of Pay (Amendment) Rules, 1990 and a corrigendum of 1992 prescribed separate pay scales: Rs.975-1660 for Untrained Intermediate Teachers and Rs.1080-1800 for Trained Matric Teachers. The respondent claimed the higher scale, arguing that his intermediate qualification entitled him to be treated as a trained teacher. The Tribunal allowed his claim based on a concession by the State counsel that intermediate teachers are entitled to the trained matric teacher scale. The State later sought to withdraw the concession, but the Tribunal dismissed the application on grounds of delay. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order. The Supreme Court held that the concession was on a matter of law and contrary to the statutory rules, and thus not binding. The Court distinguished between trained and untrained teachers, noting that training is a separate requirement. It relied on precedents that classification based on educational qualification is valid and that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied mechanically. The appeal was allowed, the original application dismissed, and the respondent was permitted to withdraw Rs.25,000 deposited by the appellant as litigation expenses.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Scale - Trained vs Untrained Teacher - Classification - The respondent, an untrained intermediate teacher, claimed pay scale of trained matric teacher. The Supreme Court held that mere higher qualification does not make one a trained teacher; classification based on training is valid. Concession by state counsel contrary to statutory rules is not binding as there is no estoppel against law. (Paras 10-14) B) Service Law - Concession by Counsel - Binding Nature - A concession on a matter of law contrary to statutory rules is not binding on the State. The court is not bound by erroneous legal submissions. (Paras 8, 11) C) Constitutional Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Classification - The principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied mechanically. Classification based on academic qualification or training is valid and does not violate Article 14. (Paras 12-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an untrained intermediate teacher is entitled to the pay scale of a trained matric teacher based on higher qualification and concession by state counsel.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Order of Tribunal and High Court set aside. Original Application filed by respondent dismissed. Respondent permitted to withdraw Rs.25,000 deposited by appellant as litigation expenses.
Law Points
- Concession contrary to law is not binding
- Estoppel against law not applicable
- Classification based on educational qualification valid
- Equal pay for equal work not mechanical
