‘Grave impropriety’: Tripura High Court slams state for blocking chief justice’s order to help stagnating staff

Justices M S Ramachandra Rao and Biswajit Palit heard the matter on April 10.

The order added that ordinarily, such proposals made by the chief justice should be approved by the state government, i.e., the council of ministers, and then it should be placed before the governor of the state.

Case of promotion of court staffer

The case was initiated by 22 petitioners serving as superintendents and assistant registrars at the Tripura High Court. The petitioners contended that they were suffering from “acute stagnation” due to a lack of promotion avenues.

They highlighted a disparity in treatment, noting that the high court had already extended similar ACP benefits to private secretaries-I in 2022, while their own requests remained unfulfilled despite holding a similar pay scale.

In 2022, the then chief justice of the Tripura High Court, Indrajit Mahanty, exercising powers under Article 229 of the Constitution, approved a proposal to amend the High Court of Services Rules, 2014, to provide ACP benefits after five years of continuous service in these posts.

However, the state finance department effectively rejected the proposal in June 2025, directing the court to follow standard state civil services rules or wait for a future pay commission.

Finance department’s stand

The finance department argued that the proposal was examined in the light of the applicable provisions of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, and then the law department was informed by the finance department, as stated.

It is submitted that reference is also made to the current financial situation of the State of Tripura, and it is stated that it is facing acute fiscal stress consequent upon the discontinuation of the Revenue Deficit Grant by the Government of India on the recommendations of the 16th Finance Commission.

Consideration by the court

The Tripura High Court noted that under sub-section (2) of Article 229, conditions of service of officers and servants of a high court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the chief justice of the court, subject to the provisions of any law made by the legislature of the state.

The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v Union of India, which held that the chief justice of a high court and the Chief Justice of India have been placed at a higher level regarding framing of rules containing the conditions of service; and that they should be looked upon with respect and their proposals about pay scales etc., should normally be accepted unless there is a good reason not to approve.

It continued that even then, the President of India should not straight away refuse approval without an exchange of thoughts by him with the Chief Justice of India.

Court’s findings

• The chief justice of the Tripura High Court had proposed the grant of ACP to Superintendents and Assistant Registrars, who had continued in the same post for a period of five years.
• The number of such officials is not very large, and, therefore, the financial implications of acceptance of the said proposal may not be high.
• Even under Rule 12 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017, for its own employees, the State of Tripura had provided for ACP benefit- employees in Level 1 to 13 of the Pay matrix of 3 financial upgradations.
• The first one- on completion of 10 years of continuous and satisfactory service, the second one – after another 7 years, and the third one – after another 8 years of continuous and satisfactory service.
• So it is giving its employees the ACP benefit 3 times in their service, though they are numerically much more than a few hundred.

Constitutional supremacy of Chief Justice

The order noted that the employees of the Tripura High Court, having been appointed by the chief justice in exercise of his powers under Artice 229, need not necessarily be held bound by the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,2017 because the High Court of Tripura Services (Appointment, Conditions and Service and Conduct) Rules, 2014 also governs their service conditions and states in Rule 16.

“This Rule thus empowers the Chief Justice to vary the pay and allowances and grant benefits such as ACP beyond those granted by the State Government to its employees, though subject to approval of the Governor,” the court observed.

Noting that this would require the approval of the Governor of the State, the Tripura High Court remarked that it appears that the proposal made by the chief justice for the grant of ACP to petitioners through the Registry of the said High Court was only looked at, in the instant case, by the finance department of the state government and was never placed before the Council of Ministers or before the Governor.