Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tri) 262

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ, Biswajit Palit, J
Sunanda Kumar Gangapadhyay – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
WP(C) No.703 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Somik Deb, Adwitiya Chakraborty
For the Respondents: S.M. Chakraborti, Dipankar Sarma, Sankar Lodh, Pinki Chakraborty

The head of a judicial institution, under Article 229, holds primary authority over staff service conditions. The executive must treat such proposals with institutional respect, engaging in consultative dialogue rather than allowing subordinate departments to summarily reject recommendations without placing them before the competent executive authority.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 229 - Judicial institution staff - Service conditions - Pay fixation - Authority of chief judicial officer - The head of the judicial institution is the supreme authority regarding appointments and service conditions of its staff - Proviso to Article 229(2) requires executive approval for rules concerning salaries, allowances, and pensions - Such approval should ordinarily be accorded to proposals made by the head of the institution; the executive cannot arbitrarily refuse concurrence without valid, cogent reasons. (Paras 21, 23, 27)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 229 - Administrative propriety - Inter-institutional comity - When a high constitutional functionary recommends revisions to service conditions, the administration has a duty to engage in a consultative process rather than summary rejection - Referencing future review committees without active consideration of the specific proposal undermines the constitutional scheme regarding institutional autonomy. (Paras 32, 34, 38)

Facts of the case:
Employees of a judicial institution sought implementation of career progression benefits after five years of continuous service, citing parity with other staff members who had already received similar benefits. The proposal was approved by the head of the institution and forwarded to the government. The finance department, without referring the matter to the state council of ministers or the constitutional head of the state, rejected the proposal, advising the institution to await recommendations from a future generalized review committee.

Findings of Court:
The summary rejection by the finance department was found to be procedurally improper and inconsistent with the constitutional scheme governing the autonomy of the judicial establishment. The government failed to follow the spirit of constitutional dialogue when dealing with a recommendation from a high judicial office.

Issues: Whether the executive's refusal to approve career progression benefits for judicial staff, despite the formal recommendation of the chief judicial officer, is constitutionally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional framework grants the head of the judicial institution primary authority over staff service conditions; thus, the executive is obligated to engage in a meaningful consultative dialogue and ensure such proposals are considered by the appropriate executive authority rather than being dismissed solely by subordinate departments, thereby maintaining institutional comity.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned orders set aside; matter remitted to the state for reconsideration in accordance with the prescribed constitutional process within three months.

JUDGMENT & ORDER

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Adwitiya Chakraborty, counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. S.M. Chakraborti, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State and Mr. Sankar Lodh, counsel appearing for the respondents-High Court of Tripura.

The petitioners are working as Superintendents and Assistant Registrars of the High Court of Tripura.

Out of the petitioners, persons who are working as Superintendents gave a representation on 20.07.2022 to the Registrar General of the High Court of Tripura requesting for providing Assured Career Progression (for short, ACP) for the Superintendents (Ministerial staff) in the High Court of Tripura at Agartala.

They had contended in the said representation that they are suffering from acute stagnation because there are only 8(eight) posts of Assistant Registrar as promotional posts for 20(twenty) posts of Superintendent Grade; most of the Superintendents older in age than those holding the posts of Assistant Registrars, would be retiring from the post of Superintendent itself after having served in the same post for much more than five years; and, therefore, the benefit of ACP should be granted to them on completion of 5(five) years of service in the said post.

They pleaded that such a benefit was extended to Private Secretaries-I vide the order dt.27.05.2022 of the High Court in WP(C) No.364 of 2021 and vide the Registry's Notification No.F.3(35)-HC/2022/2606, dt.28.01.2022 and so Superintendents also should get it.

On 10.08.2022, such of the petitioners who are working as Assistant Registrars in the High Court of Tripura (Group-A Gazetted) also made a similar request pointing out that such benefit of ACP was extended to Private Secretaries-I vide order dt.27.05.2022 of this Court in WP(C) No.364 of 2021 and vide Notification No.F.3(35)-HC/2022/2606, dt.28.01.2022 and so Asst. Registrars also should be given the said benefit.

They contended that the Asst. Registrars and Private Secretaries were on the same footing and are similarly situated officers of the Registry of the High Court holding the same scale of pay. The Private Secretaries had been granted the ACP because their promotional scope was narrow. There are 13 posts of Private Secretary-I. The feeder post of Private Secretary-I is Private Secretary-II and there are only 7 posts of Private Secretary-II. The Asst. Registrars have only 2 promotional posts of Deputy Registrar and so their promotional scope is also narrow and most of the petitioners working as Asst. Registrars for previous 8 years will retire without getting any promotion.

The said representations were placed before the then Chief Justice of the High Court of Tripura.

The then Chief Justice of the High Court, exercising powers under Article 229 of the Constitution of India approved the proposal for amendment of the High Court of Tripura Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 2014 for providing ACP after completion of 5(five) years continuous service in the same post as Assistant Registrar and Superintendent in the establishment of the High Court of Tripura.

The Registrar (Admn., P&M) addressed a letter to the L.R. & Secretary, Law Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala on 11.11.2022 enclosing the amendment proposal to the respondents for approval of the Governor and a draft of the proposed amendment to the above Rules was also enclosed, which stated as under:

"1. Short Title and Commencement:

(1) These Rules may be called the "High Court of Tripura Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) (8th Amendment) Rules, 2022.

(2) They shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 17.06.2014 i.e. the date when the High Court of Tripura Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 2014 came into force.

Amendment of Schedule-I

In Column 7 of Schedule-I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tri) 262

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURAM.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ, Biswajit Palit, JSunanda Kumar Gangapadhyay – AppellantVersusState of Tripura – RespondentWP(C) No.703 of 2025

Cases Referred (6)

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ, Biswajit Palit, J
Sunanda Kumar Gangapadhyay – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
WP(C) No.703 of 2025