The High Court of Tripura upholds that while courts cannot compel the State to make new policy decisions regarding cadre or service matters, the court will intervene if the State fails to implement or act upon its own previously stated policy commitments made before the court. This judgment is binding authority for all subordinate courts and clarifies the limits of judicial review over executive inaction in administrative matters, affirming earlier Division Bench directions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/214/2025 of Sri Haripada Das and 3 Others Vs The State of Tripura and 3 Others |
| CNR | TRHC010006312025 |
| Date of Registration | 25-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT |
| Court | High Court of Tripura |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms earlier Division Bench and Single Judge orders; sets aside order dated 09.07.2024 |
| Type of Law | Service / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court cannot direct the State Government to formulate or amend policy or rules regarding creation of cadres or promotions. However, when the State has made a policy decision, communicated its intent, or made commitments before the court, and fails to act or implement such intent without valid reasons, the court can intervene to ensure non-arbitrariness and prevent disregard for prior judicial directions. The State must act decisively in accordance with its own declared policies or representations, especially when such representations have been relied upon in prior judicial orders. Inaction or arbitrary deviation without justified grounds is subject to judicial correction. The court set aside the impugned order for failing to address the petitioners’ grievances in line with previous directions and required the State to act within a specific timeframe. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Court’s power to review executive inaction when prior representations or policy commitments are made to the court; distinction between creation of policy (executive domain) and implementation of existing/committed policy (subject to judicial scrutiny for fairness and non-arbitrariness); Supreme Court precedents on limits of judicial intervention in matters of policy. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners (serving and retired police officers) sought creation of a Senior Selection Grade (SSG) in the Tripura Police Service on par with the Tripura Civil Service, based on prior government communications and policy intent. Previous Single Judge and Division Bench orders required the State to consider and make an appropriate decision regarding SSG creation. Instead, the State issued an order refusing SSG, citing a Cabinet decision and prior meetings, without addressing prior judicial directions or giving reasons for the changed stance. The State’s inconsistent and delayed actions, despite earlier positive intent and communications, resulted in alleged prejudice to the petitioners. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Tripura |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and possibly the Supreme Court in administrative service matters |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms the bar on the court directing the State to create new policy or rules relating to cadre structure or promotions.
- Clarifies that when the State makes an explicit policy commitment, communication, or gives an undertaking before a court, it cannot later arbitrarily deny action without valid, reasoned grounds.
- Highlights that inconsistency or arbitrariness in State actions, particularly in disregard of prior judicial directions or its established policy positions, is subject to judicial correction.
- Lawyers may cite this for judicial review against executive inaction where the government has already made an official policy or commitment affecting service rights.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered various communications and proceedings where the State had repeatedly indicated a policy to create a Senior Selection Grade (SSG) for Tripura Police Service, analogous to the Tripura Civil Service.
- Previous Single Judge and Division Bench rulings did not direct the formation of new policy but required the State to act upon and take a final decision in light of its own minutes and communications.
- The court distinguished its role: courts cannot mandate the State to make policy but can require implementation of its declared policy or acts in furtherance of its own representations to prevent arbitrariness.
- The impugned order of 09.07.2024 was set aside because it failed to comply with prior judicial directions and did not address specific points raised in previous official minutes and court orders.
- The court relied on Supreme Court precedents (Samudra Debbarma, Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta, P.U. Joshi) to clarify the limits and scope of judicial intervention in policy and cadre creation.
- Ultimately, the court ordered the State to reconsider the matter and communicate a reasoned decision within six months, emphasizing timely and consistent implementation of its commitments.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The State had made multiple communications and representations since 2007 expressing intent to create the SSG in the Tripura Police Service, including a high-level Empowered Committee meeting.
- The original and appellate orders required the State to make a reasoned decision based on these prior undertakings.
- The impugned order of 09.07.2024 disregarded prior judicial directions and arbitrarily rejected the SSG without adequate reasons.
- The petitioners suffered due to State’s change in stance and failure to address their legitimate expectations and prior commitments.
Respondent (State)
- The Division Bench order did not amount to a binding direction but merely asked for consideration of the request.
- The subsequent Cabinet decision and the order of 09.07.2024 represent due consideration of the matter.
- Courts cannot direct the State to create policy or promotional avenues—it is an executive prerogative.
- Relied on Supreme Court judgments restricting judicial intervention in service policy and cadre creation.
Factual Background
The petitioners, all senior or retired officers of the Tripura Police Service, sought the creation of a Senior Selection Grade (SSG) in their service, similar to provisions already existing for the Tripura Civil Service. This demand was based on government correspondences from 2007 and 2008, as well as proposals and minutes of various meetings, including high-level deliberations. An earlier writ petition (WP(C) No.419 of 2021) resulted in directions to the State to consider the issue, and a subsequent writ appeal led the Division Bench to require the State to decide the matter expeditiously. The State then passed an order on 09.07.2024 refusing SSG creation, prompting the petitioners to again approach the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The court discussed provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution concerning writ jurisdiction.
- Examined internal government rules and procedures regarding cadre review and amendment (Tripura Police Service Rules, 1967 and related communications).
- Interpreted the boundaries of judicial intervention over Government policy relating to service matters, with reference to relevant Supreme Court guidance.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are mentioned in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural guidelines, changes to evidence, or sui generis directions are mentioned in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms established law that courts cannot mandate formation of Government policy, but distinguishes that courts will intervene where the government repudiates its own declared policy or prior commitments.