The fixed pay policy for Group-C and Group-D employees is constitutional, aimed at employment generation, and does not violate the principle of equal pay for equal work without proving equality in all respects.

JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM LODH, J.

Both the writ petitions were heard together on consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties and are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment since the issues raised in both the writ petitions are common and identical in nature.

2. The facts leading to filing of both the cases are that all the petitioners have been appointed as Graduate/Post Graduate Teachers under the respondents ranging from the year 2016 to 2018 pursuant to a selection process conducted by the Teachers’ Recruitment Board, Tripura (for short, ‘TRBT’) which included written examination/TET qualified in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as they have their essential qualifications for the said posts. They have been appointed on fixed pay basis i.e. 75% of the minimum of the pay scale for the post of Post Graduate Teacher or Graduate Teacher for a period of five years. They have approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to provide them regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. It is contended that in the year 2001 vide memorandum dated 15^th December, 2001 the State of Tripura introduced the system for recruitment of Group-C and Group-D staffs on fixed pay basis keeping in abeyance the regular pay scale. Under this system, Group-C and Group-D staffs were recruited after observing all formalities i.e. as per recruitment rules, reservation rules including open selection process. The posts against which such Group-C and Group-D employees were appointed carry regular pay scale but, for the reasons best known to them such regular pay scale was kept in abeyance for a certain period and the candidates were appointed on fixed pay basis. It is reiterated by the petitioners that under this system, the Group-C and Group-D employees, when recruited through Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC), have been provided with the benefit of regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners also averred that the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura subsequently issued another memorandum on 16.10.2007 incorporating the policy decision of the State Government made in the budget declaration 2006- 2007, whereby it has been provided that the Group-C and Group-D employees who were recruited on fixed pay basis by keeping in abeyance the regular pay scale would be afforded the regular pay scale on completion of 5 years of service without any break. Therefore, the petitioners agitated that the policy decision of the government by which they have been kept on fixed pay basis for a period of 5 years is an arbitrary decision and it violates the rights of the petitioners. They have been appointed against sanctioned posts through a regular selection process having minimum qualification for the post, etc. and hence they cannot be placed on fixed pay basis. The petitioners further pointed out that they discharge same duty as the other regular Graduate/Post Graduate Teachers who are on regular pay scale, but, they have been kept on fixed pay though they have been rendering equal duty in the same post having same qualification. More so, there is discrimination in the policy decision of the Government in respect of Group-A and Group-B employees who are appointed to the sanctioned posts after an open competitive selection process on regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment itself whereas in respect of Group-C and Group-D employees, the appointments have been considered on fixed pay basis for a period of five years. Thus, according to the petitioners, this policy decision is a clear deprivation to them which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 read with Article 38(2) of the Constitution of India and is liable to be struck down by this Court. The petitioners issued legal notice upon the respondents for considering their grievances, but, the respondents turned down their plea vide communication dated 08.12.2021 [Annexure-22 to WP(C)