Agartala: The Tripura High Court has directed the state government to grant regular pay scale benefits to teachers recruited through competitive examinations, holding that the policy of appointing them on fixed pay for five years was unconstitutional and violative of the principle of equal pay for equal work.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice M S Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit set aside a January 2025 judgment of a single bench and struck down two government memorandums issued in 2001 and 2007 that mandated fixed-pay appointments for newly recruited teachers.

Allowing two writ appeals, the bench held that the memorandums, which required teachers appointed against sanctioned posts to work on fixed pay for five years before being placed on regular scales, infringed Article 14 of the Constitution.

Rejecting the state government’s argument that the teachers had willingly accepted the fixed-pay condition mentioned in their appointment letters, the court observed that there was a clear imbalance in bargaining power between the government and the appointees.

“There can be no dispute that the bargaining power between the respondents and the appellants is unequal. The appellants cannot be expected to negotiate individually with the respondents about the illegality committed by the respondents in giving them fixed pay, though they were appointed against regular and permanent posts after undergoing a proper selection process,” the bench said.

The court was hearing appeals arising from a common judgment delivered by a single judge in January 2025. The petitioners, represented by advocate Purusuttam Roy Barman, contended that they were appointed as Graduate Teachers and Post Graduate Teachers against posts duly sanctioned by the Finance Department and carrying regular pay scales.

Despite this, they were paid a fixed remuneration amounting to 75 per cent of the minimum of the prescribed scale.

The petitioners submitted that the state introduced a system in 2001 to recruit Group C and Group D employees on fixed pay by keeping regular scales in abeyance, and a subsequent memorandum in 2007 provided for the grant of regular scales only after completion of five years of service.

They argued that since their appointments were made through an open competitive process against formally created posts, denial of regular pay was arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Accepting the submissions, the court ruled that the regular pay scale attached to sanctioned posts could not be denied to teachers appointed through a proper selection process.

However, taking note of the delay in approaching the court, the bench restricted the monetary relief.

The court directed that the teachers would be entitled to regular pay on a notional basis from the date of their initial appointment, but arrears would be payable only for a period of three years prior to the filing of the writ petitions.

The arrears are to be paid within three months, along with interest at nine per cent per annum.

Setting aside the earlier judgment, the bench declared the memorandums dated December 15, 2001, and October 16, 2007, as arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Article 14.

It further directed that all petitioners be treated as regularly appointed teachers from their initial date of joining and imposed a cost of Rs 2,000 on the state government for each petitioner.

Related

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
{if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;
n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,’script’,
‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);
fbq(‘init’, ‘609578899588292’);
fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);