A client is not bound by an erroneous concession of law made by his lawyer before a judicial authority

The Supreme Court held that an erroneous concession in law can neither be binding on the client nor on the Court as there cannot be an estoppel against law.

The above judgement was passed in the matter of Director Elementary Education, Odisha & Ors. vs. Pramod Kumar Sahoo in Civil Appeal No. 7577 of 2019 decided 26.09.2019.

Challenge

The Respondent had joined as Primary School Teacher in a pay scale of Rs.780/- Rs.1140/. The respondent has 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. Eventually, The Orissa Revised Scales of Pay (Amendment) Rules, 1990 were published which laid down a separate scale of pay for all posts of Trained Matric Teachers and non-Trained Matric Teachers. The respondent claimed that he is entitled to pay scale of Rs.840/- – 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.

Since the said pay scale was not granted to him, he invoked the jurisdiction of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal. The basis of argument is that he is intermediate and, thus, he is to be treated as a Trained Teacher which will entitle him to the pay scale of Rs.1080/- – Rs.1800/-. Before the Tribunal, the counsel for the appellant conceded that the Teachers having intermediate qualification are entitled to the scale of pay as is available to Trained Matric Teachers. On the basis of such concession, the learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application of the Respondent. The appellant filed a review petition which was dismissed. Thereafter a writ petition was filed which was dismissed vide the impugned order.

Held

The Apex Court held that the concession given by the State counsel was erroneous concession in law and therefore did not bind the appellant. Reference was made to the judgment of Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society vs. Balwan Singh & Ors wherein it was held that a lawyer generally has no implied or apparent authority to make an admission or statement which would directly surrender or conclude the substantial legal rights of the client unless such an admission or statement is clearly a proper step in accomplishing the purpose for which the lawyer was employed. Neither the client nor the court is bound by the lawyer’s statements or admissions as to matters of law or legal conclusions.

In the facts of the case, the Apex court concluded that the concession given by the State Counsel before the Tribunal was a concession in law and contrary to the statutory rules. Such concession is not binding on the State as there cannot be any estoppel against law.