Held: Rule 16 of the High Court of Tripura Services Rules, 2014 confines pay parity to State Government employees; Full Bench upholds Article 229 rule-making authority, denies “equal pay for equal work” with District Judiciary staff; binding authority for Tripura High Court pay disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WA/171/2021 of The State of Tripura and Ors Vs High Court Employees Association and Ors. CNR TRHC010009732021 |
| Date of Registration | 25-06-2021 |
| Decision Date | 27-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, J.; S. Datta Purkayastha, J. (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Tripura |
| Bench | Full Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for Tripura High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent on Article 229 rule-making; overrules the Single Judge judgment as per incuriam |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law (Arts 229, 226) and service law (High Court service rules) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Full Bench held that Rule 16, made under Article 229, expressly confines High Court employees’ pay parity to corresponding State Government cadres. Article 229 empowers the Chief Justice to frame service conditions but requires Governor’s approval for financial implications. Article 226 jurisdiction cannot override such rules. The claim to match District Judiciary scales was previously denied in W.P.(C) No. 71/2015 and is barred by res judicata. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The High Court Employees’ Association sought pay parity with District Judiciary staff based on earlier judgments and a 2014 communication. The Single Judge allowed 6th CPC benefits. The State appealed; Division Bench ordered interim implementation. Full Bench found Rule 16 confined parity to State Government scales, and prior denial in W.P.(C) No. 71/2015 barred the fresh claim. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Tripura High Court and its benches |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts facing HC-service pay disputes |
| Overrules | Single Judge judgment in W.P.(C) No. 1741/2017; portions of W.P.(C) No. 71/2015 held per incuriam |
| Distinguishes | W.P.(C) No. 617/2015 (district judiciary pay case) |
| Follows | High Court of Rajasthan v. Paliwal; S.B. Vohra; Court Stenos; Section Officer Brotherhood |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Rule 16 of the Tripura HC Service Rules 2014 expressly ties High Court pay parity only to corresponding State Government services, not District Judiciary.
- Articles 229 and 226 interplay: Art. 229 rule-making power limits Art. 226 jurisdiction; financial changes require Governor’s approval.
- Res judicata bars re-litigation of pay parity claims denied in W.P.(C) No. 71/2015 despite subsequent appeals.
- Single Judge’s reliance on “equal pay for equal work” cannot override service rules enacted under Art. 229.
- Judgment underscores per incuriam principle where prior rulings failed to consider controlling service rules.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Rule 16 Interpretation: Under Art. 229, Rule 16 was validly framed by the Chief Justice (with Governor’s approval) to align HC scales only to State Government pay bands.
- Article 229 vs. Article 226: Discretion under Art. 226 cannot override rules made under Art. 229 concerning service conditions and salaries.
- Precedents on Judicial Independence: Supreme Court decisions (Paliwal, Vohra, Court Stenos, Brotherhood) confirm CJ’s exclusive domain over HC service rules, subject to State approval for financial matters.
- Res Judicata: The claim to match District Judiciary scales was expressly refused in W.P.(C) No. 71/2015; that decision attained finality and bars fresh litigation.
- Per Incuriam Finding: Single Judge ignored Rule 16 and res judicata, resulting in an order per incuriam which the Full Bench set aside.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Rule 16 grants parity only with State Government cadres.
- Single Judge ignored Rule 16 and Article 229 framework.
- Prior decision in W.P.(C) No. 71/2015 denied identical relief—res judicata applies.
Respondent
- HC staff duties mirror District Judiciary—“equal pay for equal work.”
- W.P.(C) No. 71/2015 and Division Bench affirmed equivalence.
- Earlier orders (including 2014 CJ communication) justify parity claims.
Factual Background
In 2017 the High Court Employees’ Association filed W.P.(C) No. 1741/2017 seeking pay parity with District Judiciary based on a 2016 judgment in W.P.(C) No. 71/2015 and a 2014 CJ communication. The Single Judge granted 6th CPC benefits; the State appealed and a Division Bench ordered interim implementation. The Full Bench, prompted by Supreme Court directions, reviewed Rule 16 and res judicata, concluding the HC staff cannot claim District Judiciary scales and reversing the Single Judge.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 229 empowers the Chief Justice to frame service rules for HC officers/servants; rules relating to salaries/allowances require the Governor’s approval.
- Rule 16 (HC Tripura Services Rules 2014) fixes pay/allowances equal only to State Government employees of corresponding grades; revisions follow State revisions automatically.
- Rule 17 governs periodic increments subject to performance, not requiring Governor’s approval.
- Article 226 extraordinary jurisdiction cannot contravene valid service rules under Art. 229.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Both Hon’ble Justices Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and S. Datta Purkayastha concurred in the judgment; no separate dissent or nuanced concurrence was recorded.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Confirms Article 229 rule-making jurisprudence
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Overrules Single Judge and earlier per incuriam rulings in W.P.(C) Nos. 71/2015 and 1741/2017
Citations
- High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal, (1998) 3 SCC 72
- Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150
- Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187
- State of Maharashtra v. Assn. of Court Stenos., (2002) 2 SCC 141
- State of U.P. v. Section Officer Brotherhood, (2004) 8 SCC 286
- Beerbal Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 675
- P. Bandopadyay v. Union of India, (2019) 13 SCC 42
- W.P.(C) No. 71/2015
- W.P.(C) No. 1741/2017
- W.A. 171/2021