Denial Of Regular Pay After Regular Selection Is Unconstitutional Discrimination And Exploitation: Tripura High Court Quashes Five-Year Fixed-Pay Teacher Policy
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Tripura Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit has held that the State Government’s policy of appointing teachers to sanctioned permanent posts on a fixed-pay arrangement for five years is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Allowing the teachers’ appeals, the Court set aside the earlier denial of relief, struck down the underlying government memoranda, and directed that such appointees be treated as regularly appointed from their initial dates. It held that where recruitment to permanent posts follows a regular selection process, withholding the regular pay scale amounts to impermissible discrimination and exploitation. The State was directed to grant notional pay and service benefits from joining, pay arrears for three years prior to the writ filings with 9% interest within three months, and pay Rs. 2,000 as costs to each teacher.
The writ appeals arose from a challenge by government school teachers appointed as Graduate Teachers and Post Graduate Teachers against permanent posts under the School Education Department of the State of Tripura. The appointments were made pursuant to advertisements issued in 2017 by the Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura, which specified that the posts were permanent but carried a fixed pay of 75% of the minimum of the applicable pay matrix. Following selection through an open and competitive process, the appellants were issued appointment letters describing their engagement as temporary for one year, terminable by notice, and providing only fixed remuneration.
The appellants contended that the posts were duly sanctioned, carried regular pay scales, and that denial of regular pay violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They challenged two State memoranda dated 15 December 2001 and 16 October 2007, which introduced and regulated fixed-pay appointments for Group C and D posts. The respondents defended the policy as a valid executive decision framed under Article 309, asserting that the appellants had accepted the terms knowingly and that regular pay was granted after completion of five years.
The Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the policy. The present writ appeals questioned the legality and constitutionality of that decision.
The Division Bench examined the policy framework governing fixed-pay appointments and noted that the advertisements expressly invited applications for “permanent posts of Graduate and Post Graduate teachers”. The Court recorded that “there was admittedly, a regular process of selection and all appellants fulfilled the eligibility criteria prescribed in the recruitment rules and were selected on merit.”
On the doctrine of equal pay, the Court observed that “the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ as flowing from Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution applies to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification.” It noted that the State had not disputed that the appellants were performing the same duties as teachers appointed prior to 2001 or through the Tripura Public Service Commission.
The Bench stated that “in the same pool of teachers, some are being paid regular scale of pay from initial appointment, while others like appellants are not being paid the regular scale of pay for the first five years,” and recorded that no rational basis existed for such differentiation. It held that “the action of the respondents is blatantly arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
On policy immunity, the Court observed that “if policies framed by the Government are arbitrary or unreasonable or violate any fundamental right, they can be challenged in constitutional courts.” The Bench further recorded that “there is no pleading and no material placed to show that the State Government had financial constraints,” and held that the Single Judge erred in relying on financial stringency not pleaded by the State.
Regarding acceptance of fixed-pay terms, the Court stated that “there can be no estoppel against the Constitution and there can be no waiver of a fundamental right.” It further observed that “bargaining power between the respondents and the appellants is unequal,” and that such contractual clauses were opposed to public policy.
The Court directed that “the writ appeals are allowed” and that “the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.01.2025 in W.P.(C) No.68 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No.968 of 2022 is set aside,” with the consequence that “the said writ petitions are allowed.”
“The Memorandum dated 15.12.2001 and the Memorandum dated 16.10.2007 are declared arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The appellants shall be deemed to have been regularly appointed to the Graduate Teacher and Post Graduate Teacher posts in the School Education Department of the State of Tripura from their initial date of appointment.”
“The benefit of regular pay and other service benefits be given to each of them notionally from the date of their joining their service initially as per the appointment orders issued to them. Actual financial benefits (arrears) shall be paid for a period of three years prior to the dates of filing of the respective writ petitions.”
Such arrears shall carry “interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of actual payment,” and that “the payment shall be made within a period not exceeding three months from today. The respondents shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to each of the appellants within three months. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Senior Advocate; Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate; Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate; Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Advocate General; Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Additional Government Advocate; Ms. Pinki Chakraborty, Advocate
Case Title: Sri Zonunfela Rawihte & Ors. v. State of Tripura & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: THC:21-DB
Case Numbers: W.A. No.74 of 2025 and W.A. No.75 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Justice Biswajit Palit
