Tripura High Court Flags “Grave Procedural Impropriety” By State In Stalling ACP Benefits For HC Staff Approved By CJ

The Tripura High Court held that the State Government committed “grave procedural impropriety” by failing to act on a proposal approved by the Chief Justice to grant Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits to Superintendents and Assistant Registrars facing stagnation.

The Court observed that the Finance Department's decision to stall the proposal, without placing it before the Council of Ministers or the Governor and without engaging in any institutional dialogue with the High Court, was contrary to the constitutional framework under Article 229 governing service conditions of High Court staff.

Division Bench of Chief Justice Mr. M.S. Ramachandra Rao And Justice Biswajit Palit Remarked That: “In our opinion, the respondents No.1 and 2 has not considered the issue in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of India as was observed in the above precedents and there has been a grave procedural impropriety on their part.”

Background:

The petitioners, comprising Superintendents and Assistant Registrars of the High Court of Tripura, sought the grant of Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits after prolonged stagnation in their respective posts. They argued that limited promotional avenues resulted in employees retiring without advancement.

In 2022, the petitioners working as Assistant Registrars seeking ACP benefits similar to those already granted to Private Secretaries. Thereafter, Chief Justice of the High Court exercising powers under Article 229 of the Constitution of India approved the proposal for amendment for providing ACP after completion of 5 years continuous service.

The proposal was forwarded to the State Government for approval. However, after prolonged inaction, the Finance Department suggested that the matter be referred to a future Pay Commission and insisted on adherence to the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules.

Aggrieved by this response, the petitioners approached the High Court.

The Court reiterated that “Under Article 229 the Chief Justice has primary authority over the service conditions of High Court staff, subject only to limited executive approval in financial matters.”

The Court remarked that it is the primary duty of the State concerned normally to accept the suggestion of the Chief Justice and cannot override or indefinitely delay decisions taken by the Chief Justice regarding service conditions.

The Court further stated that Decisions on pay or career progression should not be rejected just because they may affect the State's finances or create parity issues with other employees. Instead, such decisions must be based on factors like the nature of work, responsibilities, efficiency, and integrity required for the role, rather than purely on cost considerations.

The Court clarified that “approval of the Governor” means approval at the level of the Council of Ministers, not merely a departmental decision. It remarked that the state failed to follow the constitutional principles under Article 229 of the Constitution of India.

Thus, the High Court set aside the State's decision and stated that the High Court staff are governed by separate rules and cannot be forced to follow general State pay rules.

Case Name: Sunanda Kumar & Ors. V/s The State of Tripura & Ors.

Case No.: WP ( C) No.703 of 2025

Date of Decision: 10.04.2026

For the petitioner: Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate,

Ms. Adwitiya Chakraborty, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.M. Chakraborti, Advocate General,

Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. G.A.,

Mr. Sankar Lodh, Advocate,

Ms. Pinki Chakraborty, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Order