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 payscale 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 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.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.