Tripura HC orders regular pay for teachers recruited through competitive exams, strikes down fixed-pay policy as unconstitutional, upholds equal pay for equal work, directs arrears with interest, setting a major precedent in service law.
The Tripura High Court has directed the state government to extend regular pay scale benefits to teachers appointed through competitive examinations, declaring the long-standing fixed-pay policy unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit set aside a January 2025 ruling of a single bench and quashed two government memoranda that mandated newly recruited teachers to serve for five years on fixed pay before becoming eligible for regular salary benefits.
The court held that the government memoranda dated December 15, 2001, and October 16, 2007, which enforced fixed-pay employment for teachers despite appointments to sanctioned permanent posts, were arbitrary and directly violated the constitutional principle of “equal pay for equal work.”
The Bench observed that teachers appointed through an open competitive selection process to sanctioned posts of Graduate Teacher and Post Graduate Teacher could not be deprived of the regular pay scales attached to those posts. The judges ruled that such denial amounted to unconstitutional discrimination.
While granting relief, the High Court directed that the appellants would be entitled to regular pay on a notional basis from the date of their initial appointment. However, actual arrears would be payable only for a limited period of three years prior to the filing of the respective writ petitions. The arrears are to be paid with an interest rate of nine per cent per annum, within three months from the date of the judgment.
“Since the appellants approached this Court only in 2022 and not immediately after their appointment, we direct that the benefit of regular pay be given notionally from the date of joining, while actual financial benefits shall be restricted,” the court observed.
The High Court further ruled that all petitioners should be deemed to have been regularly appointed teachers from the date they joined service. Additionally, the court imposed a cost of Rs 2,000 on the state government for each petitioner, directing that the amount be paid within three months.
Rejecting the state government’s argument that the teachers had willingly accepted the fixed-pay condition mentioned in their appointment letters, the Bench strongly criticised the imbalance in bargaining power between the government and individual appointees.
“There can be no dispute that the bargaining power between the respondents and the appellants is unequal,” the court noted. It added that teachers, appointed against permanent posts after a rigorous selection process, could not be expected to negotiate individually with the government regarding the legality of fixed pay.
The petitioners were represented by senior advocate Purusuttam Roy Barman, who argued that the posts against which the teachers were appointed were duly sanctioned by the Finance Department of the Government of Tripura and carried approved regular pay scales. Despite this, the teachers were paid only 75 per cent of the minimum pay under the prescribed scale.
According to the petitioners, the fixed-pay system was initially introduced by the state government in 2001 for Group C and Group D employees by keeping regular pay scales in abeyance. A subsequent memorandum issued in 2007 extended this policy, stating that employees appointed on fixed pay would receive regular pay only after completing five years of service.
| Also Read: Tripura achieves historic Low Crime Rate, DGP hails Policing Success |
The petitioners contended that since their appointments were made against formally created posts through open competitive examinations, their recruitment could neither be termed illegal nor irregular. Therefore, denial of regular pay attached to those posts was arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.
Accepting these submissions, the High Court ruled that the regular pay scale attached to sanctioned teaching posts could not be denied under any administrative policy. However, taking into account the delay in approaching the court, the Bench limited the financial liability of the state.
Legal experts have described the judgment as a landmark ruling in service jurisprudence, reinforcing constitutional safeguards against exploitative employment practices. The verdict is expected to have far-reaching implications for similarly placed teachers and contractual employees across the state.
