Case Summary: Legal Battle for Pay Scale Justice

In a significant legal battle for pay scale justice, the Supreme Court of India delivered a decisive judgement impacting the lives of many individuals. The case involved a dispute over pay scales in the education sector, with implications for the respondent’s entitlement to a higher pay scale dating back to 1988. The court’s ruling sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, ensuring fair treatment and clarity in matters of remuneration. Stay informed with the complete #CaseSummary.


  • The appellant filed an application stating that the wrong submission was made by the counsel for the appellant regarding the appointment of the respondent under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.
  • The respondent was appointed under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme after the death of his father on August 06, 1988.
  • The appellant challenged the order passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal on February 19, 2010, through a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa on March 3, 2016, which remained unsuccessful.
  • The Orissa Revised Scales of Pay (Amendment) Rules, 1990 introduced separate pay scales for Trained Matric Teachers and non-Trained Matric Teachers.
  • A corrigendum issued on August 27, 1992, specified the pay scales for Untrained Intermediate Teachers and Trained Matric Teachers.
  • The respondent claimed entitlement to a higher pay scale of Rs.840/- – Rs.1240/- from the day of his appointment in 1988 and Rs.1080-1800 after the amendment in 1990, as he joined as a Primary School Teacher with intermediate qualification.
  • The respondent, having intermediate qualification, was appointed against a Matric Teachers Certificate Post but was not granted the appropriate pay scale, leading him to file O.A. No.831(C) of 1998 before the Tribunal.
  • The Tribunal directed the appellant to grant the pay scale of Trained Intermediate Arts Teacher (Rs.1080/- – Rs.1800/-)
  • The pay scale mentioned is specific to the Trained Intermediate Arts Teacher position
  • This decision was made by the Tribunal in response to a specific case or appeal

Also Read: Lt. Col. Om Dutt Sharma vs. Ministry of Defence: OROP Entitlement for Army Postal Service Personnel


  • 1.2
  • 1.3
  • 1.4

Also Read: Inheritance Dispute: Validity of Alleged Marriage between Sujathamma and Hanumanthappa


  • The Trained Matric Teacher is defined as someone who has received specific training for teaching.
  • Without this training, a person cannot be considered a Trained Matric Teacher eligible for the associated pay scale.
  • The classification based on educational qualifications for granting a higher pay scale is deemed valid.
  • The rules outline a particular Grade of Pay, making any concessions made by the State Counsel before the Tribunal non-binding on the appellant.
  • An application for review or modification should have been pursued by the appellant instead of seeking concessions.
  • A subsequent review petition was dismissed due to being filed after a significant delay, and no apparent errors were found in the initial order.
  • The distinction between Trained Matric Teachers and Untrained Matric Teachers was not properly understood by the Tribunal and the High Court.
  • Concessions made by the State Counsel before the Tribunal were noted as concessions in law and contradictory to statutory rules.
  • In the case of Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., it was held that…
  • In the case of M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association v. State of M.P. & Anr., it was held that…
  • In the case of Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh & Ors., it was argued that…
  • The order passed by the Tribunal was not sustainable in law.
  • The High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal which was also found not sustainable.
  • The decision of the Tribunal and the affirmation by the High Court were both legally incorrect.

Also Read: Seniority Determination in Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam: Regulation 23 vs Government Order


  • Appellant deposited Rs.25,000/- with the Registry towards litigation expenses on July 14, 2017.
  • Respondent permitted to withdraw the said amount.
  • Appeal allowed as a result.
  • Original Application filed by the respondent dismissed.


Case Number: C.A. No.-007577-007577 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *