Writ Petition for Teachers Pay Scale

Writ Petition for Teachers Pay Scale written by Nikhil Bharadwaj Student of Amity Law School Noida

Director of Elementary Education, Odisha & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar Sahoo

Background:

A challenge was made by appeal to an order passed by the High Court of Orissa whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal remained unsuccessful. The Tribunal had directed the appellant to grant pay scale of Trained Intermediate Arts Teacher i.e. Rs.1080/- Rs.1800/-.
The respondent was appointed under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme after the death of his father Basanta Kumar Sahoo. He joined on as Primary School Teacher in pursuance of the said order in the pay scale of Rs.780/- – Rs.1140/-
The respondent had 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 scale of Rs.840/- – Rs.1240/- is the pay scale granted to Trained Matric Teachers. The Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1990 were published by the Government of Odisha on September 12, 1990, amending the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989. The aforesaid Amendment Rules of 1990 laid down a separate scale of pay for all posts of Trained Matric Teachers and non-trained Matric Teachers.
Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued on August 27, 1992, stating the scales of pay for the Untrained Intermediate Teacher and Trained Matric Teacher.
The respondent claimed that he was entitled to a pay scale of Rs.840/- – Rs.1240/- from the very day of his appointment and a pay scale of Rs. 1080-1800 after Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989 as amended in the year 1990. Since the said pay scale was not granted to him, he invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The basis of the argument is that he is intermediate and, thus, he was to be treated as a Trained Teacher which will entitle him to the pay scale of Rs.1080/- – Rs.1800/
The appellant conceded that the Teachers having intermediate qualifications were entitled to the scale of pay as was available to Trained Matric Teachers. On the basis of such concession, the learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application on February 19, 2010.
The appellant filed an application, inter alia, on the ground that the wrong submission was made by the counsel for the appellant. Such application was dismissed on the ground that the remedy of the appellant was either by filing 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, the same was dismissed on the ground of laches as well as there is no error apparent on the face of the order.
Thereafter, the appellant filed the review petition which was dismissed on January 22, 2015. It is thereafter the writ petition was filed which was dismissed vide the order impugned in the present appeal.

Appellants Contention:

The appellant submitted that the separate pay scales were provided for Untrained Matric Teachers and Trained Matric Teachers. Merely because the respondent was intermediate, which is a higher qualification than the Matric, does not make him a Trained Teacher. Therefore, the concession given by the State counsel is an erroneous concession in law and, does not bind the appellant. A reference was made to Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh & Ors.

Respondents Contention:

It was also argued that since the respondent possesses higher qualifications and is a graduate, therefore, he was entitled to the pay scale meant for Trained Matric Teachers and that State was bound by the concession given by its counsel before the Tribunal.

Courts Observations:

The court found 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 Court said that the concession given by the State Council before the Tribunal was a concession in law and contrary to the statutory rules and that such concession was not binding on the State for the reason that there cannot be any estoppel against law.
The court said that the rules provide for a specific Grade of Pay, therefore, the concession given by the learned State Counsel before the Tribunal is not binding on the appellant.
The court mentioned that the Trained Matric Teacher was the one who had been trained for the purposes of teaching and 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 the higher pay scale to a trained person or a person possessing higher qualification is a valid classification

Judgment

The court found that the order passed by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court was not sustainable in law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The Original Application filed by the respondent was dismissed.