There Can Be No Estoppel Against the Constitution: Tripura High Court Strikes Down State’s Fixed Pay Policy for Teachers as Arbitrary and Unconstitutional

"Doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work flows from Articles 14, 16 and 39(d); Fixed Pay Regime for Regular Appointees Violates Constitutional Mandate,"  In a landmark judgment delivered on January 8, 2026, the Tripura High Court comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit allowed two writ appeals (Writ Appeal Nos. 74 and 75 of 2025) filed by a group of Graduate and Post Graduate Teachers challenging the legality of the State Government’s fixed pay policy. The Court struck down two Cabinet-approved memorandums issued in 2001 and 2007, which mandated that regular appointees to sanctioned posts in Group C and D categories—including school teachers—would receive only 75% of their basic pay on a fixed basis for the first five years of service.

Rejecting the State’s defense that the appellants had accepted the appointments with full knowledge of the fixed pay conditions, the Court declared in no uncertain terms that “there can be no estoppel against the Constitution and no waiver of fundamental rights.”

“Once Appointed Through a Regular Selection Process Against Sanctioned Posts, Teachers Cannot Be Placed on Fixed Pay”: Court Rejects Arbitrary Classification

At the heart of the case was the Tripura Government’s policy of appointing Graduate and Post Graduate Teachers to sanctioned, permanent posts but offering them only a fixed pay of 75% of the applicable pay scale for the first five years. The appointments were made through open competitive exams conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board, pursuant to advertisements issued in 2017, which described the posts as permanent. Yet, the appointment letters stated that the appointments were temporary for one year and subject to termination by one month’s notice.

The appellants contended that this bifurcation was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, especially since teachers appointed through the Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC) or before 2001 were receiving full pay from the date of appointment despite doing the same work.

The Court emphatically agreed, holding:

"There is no rational basis of differentiation between the appellants and those appointed through TPSC or prior to 2001. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, as laid down in Jagjit Singh and Randhir Singh, squarely applies here.”

The bench rejected the Single Judge’s conclusion that the fixed pay policy was a valid economic measure, finding instead that no evidence of financial hardship had been placed before the Court by the State.

“The State Cannot Exploit Its Employees in the Name of Financial Constraints” – Cabinet Policy Declared Unconstitutional

The Court strongly condemned the government’s defence that the fixed pay policy was aimed at generating mass employment among unemployed youth under economic constraints. The policy had been justified on the ground of “financial stringency” and had been approved by the State Cabinet through two memorandums issued on 15.12.2001 and 16.10.2007. These memorandums suspended the regular pay scale for newly appointed Group C and D employees for an initial five-year period.

Rejecting this justification, the Court observed: “There is not a whisper of pleading or any material placed by the respondents to demonstrate financial stringency. The learned Single Judge erred in invoking financial constraints when no such defence was even raised by the State.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Bennett Coleman, the High Court reiterated that policy decisions—even those taken at Cabinet level—are not immune from judicial review if they violate constitutional principles.

"The State cannot hide behind the cloak of Cabinet approval to deny the constitutional guarantees enshrined in Articles 14 and 16. Such a policy is arbitrary, unreasonable, and unconstitutional," the Court declared.

“A Fixed Pay Regime for Regular Posts Is a Clear Violation of Article 14” – Clauses in Appointment Letters Declared Void

The Court also came down heavily on the manner in which appointment letters issued to the teachers characterized their appointments as temporary and subject to termination. It held that once posts were advertised as permanent and appointments made through a regular selection process, the State could not subsequently downgrade the nature of the post via administrative orders.

Referring to Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojonath Ganguly, the Court held that such contract clauses are void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as they are “opposed to public policy”.

"The bargaining power between the State and the appointees is wholly unequal. To compel educated, unemployed youth to accept unfair and unconstitutional terms under the threat of not getting employment is not only exploitative but antithetical to the ideals of a welfare State," the bench observed.

Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that no individual can waive or barter away their fundamental rights, citing Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation:

"A concession made under a mistake of law or otherwise, that one does not possess or will not enforce any fundamental right, cannot create an estoppel. There can be no estoppel against the Constitution."

Teachers Entitled to Regular Pay from Date of Appointment – Arrears Limited to 3 Years with 9% Interest

While acknowledging the delay in approaching the Court, the bench granted relief with some limitations. It directed that all appellants be treated as having been regularly appointed from the date of their initial appointment, and entitled to regular pay and other service benefits notionally from that date. However, actual arrears were restricted to the three years prior to filing the writ petitions, with 9% interest per annum payable until full payment is made.

The State has been given three months to comply.

The Court also awarded costs of ₹2,000 per appellant to be paid within the same timeframe.

This decision marks a significant reaffirmation of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, reinforcing that the State cannot dilute constitutional rights under the guise of policy. In doing so, the High Court of Tripura has sent a strong message that judicial deference to policy cannot extend to accepting discrimination and exploitation, especially when it targets vulnerable sections of the public workforce. The ruling not only restores monetary benefits to thousands of affected teachers but also reasserts the constitutional ethos of equality and fairness in public employment.

Date of Decision: 08 January 2026