News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 51
Agartala, January 08, 2026 : In a significant ruling with wide implications for government employees in Tripura, the High Court has struck down the State’s long-standing policy of appointing teachers on fixed pay despite advertising permanent posts, holding it to be unconstitutional and discriminatory.
A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit allowed two writ appeals filed by Graduate and Post Graduate Teachers who were recruited through the Teachers’ Recruitment Board in 2017–18. Though selected against sanctioned permanent posts after a regular competitive process, the teachers were placed on a fixed pay of 75 percent of the minimum pay scale and described as “temporary” appointees for five years.
The court found this arrangement to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It noted that teachers appointed prior to 2001, as well as those recruited through the Tripura Public Service Commission, were granted regular pay scales from the date of appointment, despite performing identical duties. This differential treatment within the same cadre, the Bench observed, had no rational basis.
Rejecting the State’s reliance on two government memoranda issued in 2001 and 2007, the court held that executive policy cannot override constitutional guarantees. The judges emphasised that once posts are created as permanent and filled through a regular selection process, the appointees are entitled to the regular pay scale attached to those posts from the very beginning.
The Bench also dismissed the argument that the teachers were bound by the fixed-pay condition because they had accepted appointment letters containing such terms. Citing settled constitutional principles, the court ruled that there can be no waiver of fundamental rights and no estoppel against the Constitution, particularly in situations involving unequal bargaining power between the State and employees.
Importantly, the court found fault with the Single Judge’s earlier reliance on alleged financial constraints of the State, noting that no such plea or supporting material had been placed on record by the government. It held that courts cannot invent justifications for unconstitutional policies in the absence of pleadings.
As relief, the High Court directed that the teachers be granted regular pay scales notionally from the date of their initial appointment, with actual monetary arrears payable for a limited period, balancing equity with administrative considerations.
The judgment reinforces the constitutional doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” and sends a clear message that fiscal or policy considerations cannot be used to justify unequal treatment of employees appointed against regular posts.
Case Reference : W.A. Nos. 74 & 75 of 2025, Zonunfela Rawihte & Ors. v. State of Tripura & Ors., decided on 08.01.2026 by the High Court of Tripura; counsels for the appellants: Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate, Samarjit Bhattacharjee and Kawsik Nath, Advocates; counsels for the respondents: Dipjyoti Paul, S.M. Chakraborty, Advocate General, Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A., and Pinki Chakraborty, Advocate.
