'Exploitative': Tripura High Court Holds State's Fixed-Pay Policy For Teachers Appointed To Regular Post As Unconstitutional

The Tripura High Court has held that the State Government's policy of appointing teachers against sanctioned permanent posts on a fixed-pay basis for five years is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that once appointments are made through a regular selection process to permanent posts, denial of regular pay amounts to impermissible "discrimination" and "exploitation". It further imposed cost of Rs. 2000 on the State. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit delivered the verdict while allowing writ appeals filed by Graduate and Post Graduate teachers appointed pursuant to recruitment advertisements issued in 2017, who had challenged a single judge's order which had upheld the advertisements. The bench held that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, flowing from Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution, applied squarely to the case. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that the principle is a constitutional goal enforceable through the equality clauses when employees perform identical work without any rational classification.The Bench further relied on State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, where the Supreme Court had crystallised the circumstances in which unequal pay scales based on irrational classification would violate Articles 14 and 16. Applying those principles, the Court found no rational basis to distinguish the appellants from teachers appointed prior to 2001 or those recruited through the Tripura Public Service Commission, all of whom were paid regular scales from the date of appointment.It said:“the action of the respondents is blatantly arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. There cannot be discrimination amongst them by giving some regular scale and some fixed pay...When the above decisions apply principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to daily wage employees and temporary employees and holds they are entitled to minimum of scale of pay of regular employees, the appellants who were appointed against regular vacancies through a regular process of selection on merit, undoubtedly stand on a better and stronger footing. They could not have been denied the benefit of regular pay scale and other benefits from the date of their initial appointment by the respondents on the basis of the two Memorandums""So the policy framed by the State Government in the memorandum dt.15.12.2001 and memorandum dt.16.10.2007, though approved by the Cabinet, of giving 'fixed pay' to persons appointed on regular posts by keeping in abeyance the regular pay scale is arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable and violates Art.14 of the Constitution of India," the bench addedThe bench was examining the validity of two State Government memorandums passed in 2001 and 2007, which provided for recruitment of Group C and D employees on fixed pay by keeping regular pay scales in abeyance, with regular pay scale to be granted only after completion of five years of service.While dealing with the State's contention that Cabinet approval insulated the policy from judicial review, the Court, placing reliance on earlier Supreme Court precedents, noted that policy decisions are not immune from constitutional scrutiny and can be interfered with if they are arbitrary or violative of fundamental rights."We agree with the contention of the appellants that 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 and that the State has a duty, while formulating policies, to minimize the inequalities of income and eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities," the court said. The bench also rejected the plea of estoppel, holding that acceptance of appointment on fixed-pay terms could not preclude a constitutional challenge. Placing reliance on settled constitutional jurisprudence, the Bench noted that there can be no waiver of fundamental rights and no estoppel against the Constitution.Finding that the State had failed to plead or establish financial stringency to justify the fixed-pay regime, the Court struck down the 2001 and 2007 memorandums as unconstitutional. The State was directed to grant the appellants regular pay scales, with notional benefits from the date of initial appointment and monetary arrears restricted as specified in the judgment.The court said that the appellants shall be deemed to have been regularly appointed to the Graduate Teacher and Post Graduate Teacher posts in the School Education Department of the State of Tripura from their initial date of appointment. For context, the appellant teachers had challenged before the division bench a single judge's order which had upheld the recruitment memorandums holding that the appellants had...

'Exploitative': Tripura High Court Holds State's Fixed-Pay Policy For Teachers Appointed To Regular Post As Unconstitutional

Preet Luthra

Tags