Supreme Court clarifies pay scale for trained teachers: Director of Elementary Education vs. Pramod Kumar Sahoo (26 September 2019)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an intermediate-qualified teacher is automatically entitled to the pay scale of a trained matric teacher.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Director of Elementary Education, Odisha & Ors. vs. Pramod Kumar Sahoo
[Judgment Date]: 26 September 2019

Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 941
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a higher educational qualification automatically entitle a teacher to a higher pay scale? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning the pay scale of a primary school teacher in Odisha. The core issue was whether a teacher with an intermediate qualification should automatically receive the pay scale meant for trained matric teachers. This judgment clarifies the distinction between educational qualifications and training for the purpose of pay scales. The bench comprised of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta, with the judgment authored by Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

The respondent, Pramod Kumar Sahoo, was appointed as a Primary School Teacher on August 10, 1988, under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme after his father’s death. He had an intermediate qualification at the time of his appointment and was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 780-1140, which was meant for untrained matric teachers. The respondent had appeared for his B.A. examination at the time of his appointment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent filed O.A. No. 831(C) of 1998 before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, claiming entitlement to the pay scale of Rs. 840-1240 from his appointment date and Rs. 1080-1800 after the 1990 amendment to the pay rules. The Tribunal allowed the application based on a concession by the appellant’s counsel that teachers with intermediate qualifications were entitled to the same pay scale as trained matric teachers. The appellant’s subsequent applications for review and modification were dismissed. The High Court of Orissa also dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay (Amendment) Rules, 1990. These rules differentiate between pay scales for trained and untrained matric teachers. The relevant clause is:

“6. In the said Rules, in the First Schedule,
(i) For the scale of pay appearing against Sl. No. 2 in Col. (4) under the heading “Revised Scales of Pay”, the following scale of pay shall be substituted, namely;- “Rs. 775-12-871-E.B.-14-1025”.
(ii) For the scale of pay appearing against Sl. No. 6 in Col. (4) under the heading “Revised Scales of Pay”, the following scale of pay shall be substituted namely:-
(a) Rs. 975-25—1, 150-E.B.-30-1,660 (For all posts except Trained Matric Teachers)”

A corrigendum issued on August 27, 1992, further clarified the pay scales:

Sl. No. | Name of Post | Existing Scale of Pay 1985 | Revised Scale of Pay
—|—|—|—
5(i) | Untrained Intermediate Teacher | 840-1240 | 975-1660
(ii) | Trained Matric Teacher | 840-1240 | 1080-1800

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant contended that the pay scales are specifically defined for Trained Matric Teachers and Untrained Matric Teachers.
• The appellant argued that possessing an intermediate qualification, which is a higher qualification than matriculation, does not automatically qualify a teacher as a Trained Teacher.
• The appellant submitted that the concession made by the State counsel before the Tribunal was an erroneous concession in law and therefore, not binding on the State.
• The appellant relied on the judgment in Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh & Ors. [(2015) 7 SCC 373], to argue that a client is not bound by a lawyer’s statements or admissions on matters of law.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that since he possessed a higher qualification (intermediate and later a graduate degree), he should be entitled to the pay scale meant for Trained Matric Teachers.
• The respondent contended that the State was bound by the concession given by its counsel before the Tribunal.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in highlighting the distinction between educational qualification and training, and in arguing that an erroneous concession on a point of law is not binding on the State.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the respondent, possessing an intermediate qualification, was automatically entitled to the pay scale of a Trained Matric Teacher.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh & Ors. [(2015) 7 SCC 373]*: The Court used this case to support its finding that a concession on a point of law by a lawyer is not binding on the client.
• Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1994) 2 SCC 521]*: The Court relied on this case to justify the classification based on academic qualification or experience for pay scales.
• M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association v. State of M.P. & Anr. [(2004) 4 SCC 646]*: The Court referred to this case to further support the validity of classification based on educational qualification for pay scales.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that pay scales are determined by the nature of the job, qualifications, and training. The Court emphasized that a higher educational qualification does not automatically entitle an employee to a higher pay scale meant for a different category of employees. The Court also highlighted that concessions on points of law are not binding, and there can be no estoppel against law.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative argument that a higher qualification should entitle the respondent to a higher pay scale but rejected it because the rules specifically categorized pay scales based on whether the teacher was trained or untrained, and not solely on educational qualification. The court also rejected the argument that the State was bound by the concession of the counsel as it was a concession on a point of law.

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal and the High Court had erred in their interpretation of the rules. The Court stated:

“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 Court further observed:

“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 Court also noted:

“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.”

There was no dissenting opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• A higher educational qualification does not automatically entitle a teacher to the pay scale of a trained teacher.
• Training is a separate requirement for higher pay scales in teaching positions.
• Concessions made by a lawyer on a point of law are not binding on the client.
• There can be no estoppel against law.
• Pay scales can vary based on academic qualification and training.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the respondent is permitted to withdraw the Rs. 25,000 deposited by the appellant towards litigation expenses.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a higher educational qualification does not automatically entitle a teacher to the pay scale of a trained teacher. Training is a separate requirement. This judgment reinforces the principle that pay scales are determined by the nature of the job, qualifications, and training, and that concessions on points of law are not binding on the State. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the application of existing principles in the context of teacher pay scales.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal and the High Court. The Court clarified that a higher educational qualification does not automatically entitle a teacher to the pay scale of a trained teacher. The judgment emphasizes the importance of training in determining pay scales and reinforces the principle that concessions on points of law are not binding.