AGARTALA: The Tripura High Court has dismantled the State’s fixed‑pay policy for school teachers, declaring that Graduate and Post Graduate teachers appointed in 2017–18 against permanent posts cannot be forced to work for 75% of the basic pay for five years.
According to a common judgment delivered on January 8, 2026, a Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit set aside a 2025 Single Judge order and held that two key government memorandums issued in 2001 and 2007 “are arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
The case arose from two writ appeals filed by 15 Graduate and Post Graduate teachers selected by the Teachers’ Recruitment Board, Tripura (TRBT) under advertisements dated May 27, 2017 and November 17, 2017 for “permanent posts” in Classes IX–X and XI–XII.
“The advertisements indicated that they would be paid only a fixed pay of 75% of basic pay,” the Bench noted, adding that the appointment letters curiously described the posts as “purely temporary for 1 year” and terminable on notice, with only a fixed monthly pay.
Also read | 44th Agartala Book Fair Records Rs 54.05 Lakh Sales in Just 5 Days
It is learned that the appellants argued they were appointed against sanctioned posts carrying regular pay scales, after an open competitive process, and were doing the same work as other Graduate and Post Graduate teachers on full scale, including those appointed prior to 2001 and through the Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC).
“The intent behind the policy to appoint only the Group C and D employees, who are lowest in the hierarchy of employees, on fixed pay is to deny fair and legitimate salary to them and amounts to their exploitation,” they contended. Allegedly, they also pointed to disparities where similarly placed staff in the Home Department were kept out of the fixed‑pay regime.
Meanwhile, the State defended Memorandum dated December 15, 2001 and Memorandum dated October 16, 2007 as Cabinet‑approved policy decisions on recruitment and pay determination, reportedly citing legislative discussions and financial constraints, and relied on the fact that the teachers had accepted fixed‑pay terms when they joined. A Single Judge had earlier upheld this line, holding that pay fixation was an executive domain and that courts should show restraint.
However, the Division Bench found that there was “no rational basis of differentiation” between the appellants and other regularly paid teachers and held that “the action of the respondents is blatantly arbitrary and violates Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” Citing the Supreme Court’s “equal pay for equal work” jurisprudence, the court ruled that once candidates are selected through a regular process against permanent posts, they are entitled to regular pay scales and that the State cannot exploit unequal bargaining power through one‑sided appointment clauses.
Also read | ONGC’s Tripura Breakthrough: India’s First CNG-Powered Drilling Rigs Cut Diesel Use by 70%
“It is not open to the Government to exploit citizens, especially when India is a welfare State, committed to a socialist pattern of society,” the Bench observed, calling the fixed‑pay policy “arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable.”
Moreover, it held there could be “no estoppel against the Constitution and no waiver of fundamental right,” rejecting the State’s plea that the teachers were bound by their acceptance of fixed‑pay offers.
In the operative directions, the court allowed both writ appeals, set aside the Single Judge’s January 17, 2025 judgment, and allowed the original writ petitions. The 2001 and 2007 memorandums were struck down, and the appellants “shall be deemed to have been regularly appointed” from their initial joining dates in the School Education Department.
The Bench ordered that the benefit of regular pay and other service benefits be given notionally from the date of joining, while arrears of actual financial benefits are to be paid for three years prior to the filing of the writ petitions, “with interest at 9% p.a. till date of actual payment,” within three months. Additionally, the respondents have been directed to pay costs of Rs 2,000 to each appellant within the same period, the judgment stated.