Counsel’s legal concession is non-binding, but a correctly recorded factual abandonment binds the litigant.

The appellant, appointed as an Assistant Conservator of Forest under the Odisha Forest Service Group-A (Junior Branch) Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2013, underwent the prescribed two-year training during which she received a stipend instead of salary, as contemplated by the then-applicable Rules.

The Rules were amended by notification dated 13 March 2024 to provide for salary and admissible allowances during the training period.

Relying on the amendment and decisions granting similar relief to similarly situated officers, the appellant sought salary in lieu of stipend through a representation, which the Government rejected on 2 February 2026.

The appellant challenged the rejection before the Single Bench. During hearing, the appellant’s counsel allegedly conceded or abandoned the claim relating to seniority and restricted the writ petition to the claim for salary.

The Single Bench consequently granted salary-related relief but did not adjudicate or grant the seniority claim.

The appellant thereafter sought modification, asserting that no such concession had been made and requesting deletion of the recorded concession and consequential seniority relief.

The Single Bench rejected the application on 2 July 2026, holding that the concession had been duly made and correctly recorded.

The appellant preferred the present writ appeal against the orders dated 6 May 2026 and 2 July 2026.

The Division Bench did not examine the maintainability objection concerning a single appeal against two orders and confined its consideration to the effect of the alleged concession.

Whether a concession made by counsel on a question of law, particularly one contrary to statutory rules, is binding on the litigant?

Whether a concession on fact or abandonment of a claim by counsel binds the litigant in the absence of the client’s instructions?

Whether the appellant could challenge in appeal the Single Bench’s recording of the concession as a mistaken recording of what occurred during the hearing?

Whether the appellant was entitled to modification of the writ order so as to revive or grant the abandoned seniority claim?

The Court distinguished concessions on law from concessions on fact.

A counsel’s erroneous concession on a proposition of law, especially one inconsistent with statutory rules, is not binding because the operation and applicability of legislation cannot depend on counsel’s concession.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Subit Kumar Das, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2243; Union of India v. Manraj Enterprises, (2022) 2 SCC 331; Uptron India Ltd. v. Sammi Bhan, (1998) 6 SCC 538; and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola, (2019) 13 SCC 82, which recognise that concessions contrary to statutory provisions or erroneous concessions on law do not bind the parties.

A factual concession, however, must be assessed with reference to the counsel’s authority and the client’s instructions; absent such authority, a prejudicial factual concession may be expunged.

Further, the judge’s record of proceedings is ordinarily sacrosanct and cannot be contradicted merely by affidavit.

A party alleging erroneous recording must promptly approach the same judge, who may correct or expunge the record if satisfied that the event did not occur.

The Court also recognised the right of a litigant to abandon a relief, drawing support from the principle embodied in Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The governing service framework was the 2013 Odisha Forest Service Rules as amended by notification dated 13 March 2024.

The Division Bench held that the appellant’s case principally concerned an alleged denial or mistaken recording of a concession, rather than an erroneous concession on the interpretation of law.

Although a legal concession contrary to the amended service Rules would not bind the appellant, the Single Bench had recorded that counsel expressly abandoned the ancillary seniority claim and confined the writ petition to salary.

The appellant promptly sought modification before the Single Bench, but that Court reaffirmed that the concession had in fact been made.

Since the appellate court does not ordinarily contradict the trial or hearing judge’s direct record of proceedings, and no basis was shown to displace the Single Bench’s finding, the Division Bench treated the abandonment as operative.

The Court further found that the primary salary claim had already been granted in accordance with the amended Rules and the precedents extending similar relief; permitting revival of the abandoned seniority claim would undermine certainty and uniformity in judicial decisions.

The appellant failed to establish that the Single Bench had wrongly recorded the abandonment of her seniority claim.

As the salary relief had already been granted and no ground for modification was made out, the writ appeal was dismissed as meritless, with no order as to costs.