High Court Staff Cannot Claim Pay Parity with District Judiciary | Parity Limited to State Government Employees Under Rule 16 of 2014 Service Rules : Tripura High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Tripura Full Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha set aside a judgment that had directed parity of pay between High Court employees and the District Judiciary. The Bench held that the earlier judgment was rendered per incuriam and dismissed the claim for revised pay and allowances on par with the District Judiciary. The Court allowed the writ appeal filed by the State and directed refund of any amounts received by employees pursuant to the earlier order within six months. All pending applications were disposed of and no costs were imposed.
The litigation arose when employees of the High Court, through their association, sought pay and allowances equal to those granted to employees of the District Judiciary. The initial writ petition, W.P.(C) No.1741 of 2017, was filed by the High Court Employees’ Association and its office bearers. They sought fixation of pay and benefits in line with those granted to the District Judiciary based on a prior judgment dated 11 August 2016 in W.P.(C) No.71 of 2015. They also relied on an order dated 16 December 2017 of the District and Sessions Judge, South Tripura, directing payment of arrears and benefits under the Sixth Central Pay Commission to District Judiciary employees.
The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 9 March 2021, allowed the petition, holding that the employees of the High Court were similarly situated to those in the District Judiciary. The Single Judge directed implementation of revised pay structures, arrears, and allowances as per the Sixth Central Pay Commission, with effect from 1 January 2006, subject to a time frame of eight months.
Challenging this, the State of Tripura filed Writ Appeal No.171 of 2021. The appellants relied heavily on Rule 16 of the High Court of Tripura Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 2014, which stipulated parity of pay with State Government employees of corresponding grade, not with the District Judiciary. The State argued that this provision had been overlooked by the Single Judge.
During the pendency of the appeal, on 21 December 2021, a Division Bench admitted the writ appeal but simultaneously directed interim implementation of Sixth Central Pay Commission benefits for High Court employees, in line with District Judiciary employees, subject to the outcome of the pending Supreme Court proceedings in Civil Appeal Nos.9198–9199 of 2018. The State challenged this interim order before the Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) No.8768 of 2022. On 22 July 2022, the Supreme Court issued notice and requested deferment of contempt proceedings.
Later, on 14 May 2025, the Supreme Court adjourned the matter and directed the High Court to proceed with W.A. No.171 of 2021 on merits. Consequently, the Division Bench referred the matter to a Full Bench, noting that Rule 16 had not been considered in earlier judgments, raising the possibility that they were rendered per incuriam. The Full Bench heard the matter on 12 August 2025 and reserved judgment.
The Court examined the High Court of Tripura Services Rules, 2014, framed under Article 229 of the Constitution with gubernatorial approval. Rule 16 provided that High Court employees would be entitled to pay and allowances equivalent to State Government employees of corresponding grade, with automatic revisions linked to State Government service revisions. Rule 17 dealt with increments, linking them to conduct and satisfactory work. The Court stressed that parity under Rule 16 was confined strictly to State Government employees, excluding District Judiciary employees.
The Bench considered Article 229 of the Constitution, which vests the Chief Justice of a High Court with powers to make rules on service conditions of High Court staff, subject to gubernatorial approval for rules relating to salaries, allowances, leave, or pensions. It cited Supreme Court precedents including High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal, Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India, State of Maharashtra v. Association of Court Stenos, and State of U.P. v. Section Officer Brotherhood, stating that revision of pay scales of High Court staff requires exercise of power by the Chief Justice under Article 229 and approval of the Governor, and cannot be directed under Article 226 by a High Court.
The Court noted that the communication dated 17 September 2014 by the Registrar General, containing views of the then Chief Justice recommending one advance increment to certain High Court staff, could not be construed as recommending parity with District Judiciary employees. It only addressed higher educational qualifications of High Court staff and Shetty Commission increments, not equivalence of duties or responsibilities. Furthermore, no approval from the Governor had been obtained for parity of pay with the District Judiciary.
The Bench also revisited W.P.(C) No.71 of 2015, where the Association had sought similar reliefs. By judgment dated 11 August 2016, only the claim for one advance increment was allowed, while the claim for upgraded pay scales on par with the District Judiciary was not granted. The Division Bench in W.A. No.12 of 2017 affirmed this limited relief. The Court held that denial of parity relief attained finality and operated as res judicata against raising the same claim in W.P.(C) No.1741 of 2017.
The Court further rejected reliance on W.P.(C) No.617 of 2015, which dealt with District Judiciary employees’ entitlement to the Sixth Pay Commission benefits. That judgment, it observed, related exclusively to District Judiciary employees and not High Court staff.
The Full Bench recorded: “Thus the rule states that the pay and allowances of the employees of the High Court will be on par with the pay and allowances of members of the State Government service of the corresponding class/grade. Whenever the grade pay and allowances are revised for members of the State Government service, the pay and allowances of the employees of the High Court will stand automatically revised.”
It further observed: “It is very important to note that parity in regard to pay and allowances is not given by the said Rule with the pay and allowances of the employees of the District Judiciary.”
On the role of Article 229, the Court stated: “This article also confers rule-making power on the Chief Justice for regulating the conditions of service of officers and servants of the High Court subject to the condition that if the rules relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, they have to have the approval of the Governor of the State.”
Regarding reliance on communication of 2014, the Bench recorded: “A plain reading of the above views of the Chief Justice of the High Court contained in the communication dt.17.9.2014 does not disclose that His Lordship had expressed any opinion as to whether the nature of duties and responsibilities of the employees of the High Court is similar to that of employees of corresponding grade employed in the District Judiciary.”
Addressing W.P.(C) No.71 of 2015, the Bench stated: “No such upgraded pay scales either have been claimed by the petitioners or no such pay scales can be granted in their favor. The employees/officers of the High Court of Tripura is entitled to 1 (one) advance increment, equal to the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary w.e.f.1.4.2003 notionally till 31.12.2014, the preceding year of the filing of the Writ petition.”
On res judicata, it recorded: “The Respondent No.1 is barred by res judicata from re-agitating their claim in W.P.(C) No.1741 of 2017.”
The Bench concluded: “To sum up, we hold that the learned Single Judge: (i) failed to note that the claim of the Respondent No.1 Association for pay and allowances on par with employees of the District Judiciary was not granted in W.P.(C) No.71 of 2015 though claimed by Respondent No.1 Association therein, and such claim cannot be made afresh in W.P.(C) No.1741 of 2017 and is barred by res judicata; (ii) ignored Rule 16 of the High Court of Tripura Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 2014 … (iii) failed to take into account the fact that when the Chief Justice is vested with power under Art.229(2) … (iv) failed to appreciate that revision of pay and allowances … cannot be given to members of Respondent No.1 Association.”
The Court issued the following directives: “For all the aforesaid reasons, the judgment dt.9.3.2021 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1741 of 2017 is set aside; the WP(C) No.1741 of 2017 is dismissed; the W.A.No.171 of 2021 is allowed; the interim order dt.21.12.2021 granted by the Division Bench in W.A. No.171 of 2021 is set aside; and the members of the Respondent No.1 Association are directed to refund within 6 months the amounts, if any, received by them pursuant to the judgment of the learned Single Judge as per the undertaking given by the members of the Respondent No.1 Association to the Registrar (Administration).”
The Court added that all pending applications stood disposed of, and no costs were imposed.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. G.A., Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
For the Respondents: Mr. B.N. Majumder, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Abir Baran, Advocate, Mr. Pannalal Debbarma, Advocate, Mr. D.J. Saha, Advocate.
Case Title: State of Tripura & Ors. v. High Court Employees’ Association & Ors.
Case Number: W.A. No.171 of 2021
Bench: Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, Justice S. Datta Purkayastha
