2019 (9) TMI 1567 - SC - Indian Laws

Court rules untrained teacher not entitled to higher pay based on educational qualifications

Director of Elementary Education, Odisha and Ors. Versus Pramod Kumar Sahoo

The Court found that the Respondent, lacking the necessary training, could not be classified as a Trained Matric Teacher entitled to a higher pay scale. ... Condonation of delay in filing application - Grant of pay scale of Trained Intermediate Arts Teacher - application was dismissed on the ground that the remedy of the Appellant was either by fling an application of review or modification but since such application has been filed after two years of the order having been passed by the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- 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. 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 order passed by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court is not sustainable in law - Appeal allowed. Issues:Challenge to order passed by High Court on writ petition against order of Odisha Administrative Tribunal regarding pay scale of teacher.Analysis:Issue 1: Pay Scale DisputeThe Respondent, appointed under a scheme, claimed entitlement to a higher pay scale as a Trained Matric Teacher. The Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989 as amended in 1990, provided separate scales for Trained and Untrained Matric Teachers. The Respondent argued for the pay scale of Rs. 840-1240 from the day of appointment and Rs. 1080-1800 post the amendment. The Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the Respondent based on a concession by the Appellant's counsel regarding pay scales for intermediate teachers.Issue 2: Concession by State CounselThe Appellant challenged the concession made by the State counsel before the Tribunal, arguing that the Respondent, possessing higher qualifications, should be considered a Trained Matric Teacher. The Appellant cited legal principles stating that concessions by counsel are binding if unequivocal, but doubted concessions should not be accepted without proper authorization. The Respondent contended that the State was bound by the counsel's concession.Issue 3: Classification and Legal PrecedentsThe Court analyzed the distinction between Trained and Untrained Matric Teachers, emphasizing the need for specific training for the higher pay scale. Legal precedents were cited to support the classification based on educational qualifications for granting different pay scales. The Court held that the Respondent, lacking the necessary training, could not be classified as a Trained Matric Teacher entitled to the higher pay scale.Final Decision:The Court found that the Tribunal and High Court had erred in not appreciating the distinction between Trained and Untrained Matric Teachers. The concession made by the State counsel was deemed contrary to statutory rules and not binding. Relying on legal precedents, the Court upheld the validity of the classification based on educational qualifications for determining pay scales. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Respondent's application was dismissed, and the Appellant was directed to pay litigation expenses.