Concession In Law Made By Lawyer Not Binding On Client: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court has observed that concession by a counsel (lawyer) as to matters of law before a Court is not binding on the client.

In this case, Odisha Administrative Tribunal had allowed an application filed by Pramod Kumar Sahoo,  a Teacher. In his OA, the applicant had claimed that he is entitled to pay scale of Rs.840 to Rs.1240 from the very day of his appointment and pay scale of Rs. 1080-1800 after Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989 as amended in the year 1990.

The Tribunal, allowed the OA after recording the submission made by the counsel for the department who conceded that the Teachers having intermediate qualification are entitled to the scale of pay as is available to Trained Matric Teachers. The Review petition filed by the department was dismissed by the Tribunal and the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's order.

Before the Apex Court, it was contended the concession given by the State counsel is erroneous concession in law and, does not bind the state.

The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta 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 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 observation made in Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh that neither the client nor the court is bound by the lawyer's statements or admissions as to matters of law or legal conclusions was referred to. 

Dismissing the OA, by setting aside the Tribunal and High Court orders, the bench said that distinction between Trained Matric Teacher and Untrained Matric Teacher was not appreciated in this case. It said:

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.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment