Facts
The petitioners, serving as Superintendents and Assistant Registrars at the High Court of Tripura, sought the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) after five years of service to mitigate acute career stagnation
Source reference: p. 4, paras. 3–4They argued parity with Private Secretaries-I, who were granted this benefit via a 2022 notification
Source reference: p. 4, para. 3Exercising powers under Article 229 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice approved a proposal to amend the High Court of Tripura Services Rules, 2014, to provide ACP after five years of continuous service for these posts
Source reference: p. 5, para. 6The Registry forwarded this proposal to the State Government for the Governor’s approval on 11.11.2022
Source reference: p. 5, para. 7After seeking several clarifications regarding financial implications, the Finance Department issued an order on 27.05.2025 (impugned herein) rejecting the proposal, directing the High Court to follow Rule 12 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017, and suggested referring the matter to a future Pay Commission
Source reference: p. 8, para. 12Issues
1. Whether the State Government’s executive refusal to approve the Chief Justice’s proposal regarding service conditions of High Court staff violates the constitutional mandate of Article 229.
Source reference: p. 11, para. 22 / p. 18, para. 272. Whether the Finance Department possesses the authority to unilaterally reject a proposal approved by the Chief Justice under Article 229 without a dialogue or placement before the Council of Ministers and the Governor.
Source reference: p. 23, paras. 37–393. Whether the denial of ACP benefits to the petitioners constitutes a violation of Articles 14 and 16 given the benefit was extended to similarly situated Private Secretaries-I.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 14(ii) / p. 24, para. 43Law Applied
The court primarily applied Article 229 of the Constitution of India, which vests the Chief Justice with supreme authority over High Court staff, subject only to the Governor's approval for rules relating to salaries and allowances
Source reference: p. 11, para. 21It relied on M. Gurumoorthy v. Accountant General, establishing the Chief Justice as the supreme authority in appointments and service conditions
Source reference: p. 12, para. 23State of A.P. v. T. Gopalakrishnan Murthi and Union of India v. S.B. Vohra established that the State should ordinarily accord approval to the Chief Justice’s proposals as a matter of course, and any disagreement must be resolved through a "dialogue" or "exchange of thoughts" rather than a straight refusal
Source reference: p. 12, para. 24; p. 17, para. 27The court also cited State of Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chandra Mundra, emphasizing "constitutional comity" and that the "Governor’s approval" implies consideration by the Council of Ministers, not just a department
Source reference: p. 19, para. 28; p. 23, para. 38Reasoning
The court found the Finance Department’s insistence on following Rule 12 of the TSCS (RP) Rules, 2017, legally untenable, as Rule 16 of the High Court of Tripura Services Rules, 2014, specifically empowers the Chief Justice to vary pay and allowances
Source reference: p. 22, para. 35; p. 24, para. 46It noted that while the State grants three ACPs to thousands of its own employees, the Chief Justice’s proposal for a single ACP for a small number of High Court staff was unfairly rejected
Source reference: p. 21, paras. 31–32The court highlighted a "grave procedural impropriety" as the Finance Department rejected the proposal without placing it before the Council of Ministers or the Governor
Source reference: p. 23, para. 37; p. 24, para. 44the court emphasized that in the absence of a Pay Commission, the High Court is competent to undertake pay fixation tasks under Article 229
Source reference: p. 21, para. 34The court concluded that the State’s action ignored the constitutional principles of independence of the judiciary and institutional integrity
Source reference: p. 19, para. 28; p. 23, para. 40Holding
The court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the impugned orders of the Finance and Law Departments
It held that the State cannot insist that High Court employees be governed strictly by the State's general Pay Rules in total disregard of Article 229 and Rule 16 of the High Court Services Rules
Source reference: p. 24, para. 46The matter was remitted to the State Government with a direction to place the Chief Justice’s proposal before the Council of Ministers for consideration and subsequently before the Governor for approval
Source reference: p. 25, para. 47The court directed this exercise to be completed within three months
Source reference: p. 25, para. 48Original Court PDF
Sri Sunanda Kumar Gangapadhyay and OrsvsThe State of Tripura and Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in