Exclusion Without Justification Is Arbitrary: Tripura High Court Orders Equal Allowances for Jail Warders on Par with Police Personnel

Denial of Enhanced Allowances to Jail Warders Violates Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution - Tripura High Court has struck down the exclusion of Jail Warders and Head Warders from enhanced allowances granted to Police personnel, holding it to be discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Delivering the judgment in Siddhartha Chakraborty & Another v. Secretary, Department of Home (Jail), Government of Tripura & Others on January 21, 2025, Justice Arindam Lodh directed the Tripura Government to immediately extend the enhanced Kit Maintenance Allowance/Annual Dress Allowance and Ration Money Allowance to all Warders and Head Warders of the Home (Jail) Department, at par with their counterparts in the Police and Fire Services Departments.

The Court held: "The exclusion of Warders and Head Warders of the Jail Department from the benefits of revised allowances is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Government has failed to provide any reason for this disparity, making such exclusion unsustainable in law."

"Equal Work, Equal Pay—Arbitrary Exclusion Cannot Stand"

The petitioners, Siddhartha Chakraborty (Warder) and Bipad Bandhu Sharma (Head Warder), challenged the denial of enhanced allowances under the Revision of Pay Rules, 2017 (ROP 2017), despite a notification dated June 15, 2017, which initially placed them on par with Police and Fire Service personnel.

The petitioners were initially granted Kit Maintenance Allowance and Ration Money Allowance along with other uniformed personnel, including police and fire service employees. However, while police personnel received an enhancement in their allowances in January 2020 and November 2024, the same benefits were denied to Jail Warders and Head Warders without any justification.

The petitioners contended that the refusal to extend these benefits violated their fundamental right to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as their duties, responsibilities, and service conditions were identical to police constables and head constables.

Review Meeting Chaired by Chief Minister Recommended Uniformity—Finance Department Rejected It Without Reasons

A review meeting chaired by the Chief Minister of Tripura on October 7, 2021, acknowledged this disparity and recommended uniformity in allowances for Jail Warders and Head Warders. However, the Finance Department rejected the proposal without assigning any reasons, stating in its note: “The Finance Department regrets the proposal of the Department regarding uniform allowances for uniform staff of the Home (Jail) Department on the pattern of State Police personnel.”

The Court took serious exception to this rejection, observing that: “The Finance Department has failed to assign any reason for denying the benefits of revised allowances to Warders and Head Warders. When the Jail Department personnel were originally included in the 2017 notification along with police, forest, and fire service personnel, their subsequent exclusion is arbitrary and indefensible.”

"State Cannot Treat Uniformed Personnel Differently Without Justification"

Analyzing the June 15, 2017, notification, the Court noted that Jail Warders and Head Warders were originally classified along with police, fire service, and forest personnel for allowances. The notification clearly stated that:

“Kit Allowance and Ration Allowance shall be granted to uniformed personnel of the Home (Police and Fire Services) Department, Jails, Home Guards, Excise, and Forest Department.”

Rejecting the State’s argument that Jail Warders and Head Warders could be treated differently, the Court observed: “The rank of Jailor has been equated with Inspector of Police, and the rank of Sub-Jailor is equated with Sub-Inspector of Police. When the Jail Warders and Head Warders were placed at an equal footing with Police personnel under the 2017 notification, their exclusion from enhanced benefits violates the principle of equal pay for equal work.”

"Relief Granted: Enhanced Allowances Approved, But No Arrears Due to Delay in Filing"

While allowing the petition and directing the State to implement enhanced allowances for all Warders and Head Warders by February 2025, the Court declined to grant arrears, noting that the petitioners approached the Court belatedly.

The Court held: “The petitioners ought to have raised their grievance earlier. Since they have approached belatedly, no arrears shall be granted. However, the revised benefits shall be implemented prospectively by February 2025.”

"Judgment in Rem—All Similarly Placed Jail Warders to Benefit"Recognizing the broader impact of the issue, the Court clarified that the judgment was not limited to the two petitioners but would apply to all Warders and Head Warders in Tripura’s Jail Department.

“This judgment shall be treated as Judgment in rem, ensuring that all Warders and Head Warders of the Jail Department receive the same benefits as personnel of the Police, Fire Service, and Forest Departments.”

Conclusion: Judicial Check on Executive Discretion—State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Benefits

The Tripura High Court’s ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring equality in public employment and preventing arbitrary government action. The judgment establishes that:

The government cannot arbitrarily exclude a group of employees from benefits granted to similarly placed personnel without reasonable justification.

Service benefits must be uniformly applied if the duties, risks, and service conditions are identical.

Decisions affecting employee rights must be reasoned and not based on executive discretion without explanation.

With this judgment, Tripura’s Jail Warders and Head Warders will now receive an annual Kit/Dress Allowance of ₹7,500 and a monthly Ration Money Allowance of ₹2,000, aligning them with police and fire service personnel.

The State Government must now comply with the High Court’s directives and implement the enhanced allowances by February 2025, failing which contempt proceedings may follow.

This judgment is a strong affirmation of constitutional equality in public service and a warning against arbitrary exclusion in matters of pay and allowances.

Date of Decision: 21/01/2025