2026 Supreme(Online)(Tri) 328

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S. Datta Purkayastha, J
Chira Kumar Jamatia – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
WP(C) No.265 of 2022|WP(C) No.268 of 2022|WP(C) No.378 of 2022|WP(C) No.650 of 2022|WP(C) No.810 of 2022|WP(C) No.831 of 2022

Employees shifting from contractual government service to regular service through competitive selection are entitled to regular pay scales. Re-imposing fixed-pay periods is arbitrary and exploitative, violating the principle of equal pay for equal work, particularly given the state's dominant bargaining position in the employment market.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Employment contracts - Inequality of bargaining power - Pay parity - Public sector recruitment - Petitioners challenged the imposition of a fixed-pay regime in new government appointments despite prior long-term service in contract-based roles under the same government.

(B) Judicial intervention is warranted when employees possess unequal bargaining power, rendering standard employment contract terms that force lower wages for the same nature of work as inherently exploitative.

(C) An arbitrary re-imposition of a probation-like fixed-pay phase upon state employees who have already successfully cleared a competitive selection process and completed required service thresholds is discriminatory and violates the principle of equal pay for equal work.

(D) Technical resignations from one state-funded position to join another does not necessarily forfeit the continuity of past service for calculation of salary, seniority, or pensionary benefits. (E) Provident fund accounts of employees migrating between public departments are required to be activated or merged in accordance with procedural norms to ensure financial continuity.

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were initially engaged on fixed-pay contract terms under a government scheme. Following a selection process, they resigned to join regular government positions. Despite their experience, the government placed them on a new five-year fixed-pay regime in their recent appointments. The petitioners sought regular pay scales and the counting of prior service for all monetary and retirement benefits.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the State cannot subject an employee to repeat cycles of exploitative fixed-pay regimes when the nature of duties remains comparable and a competitive selection process has been satisfied. The court rejected the argument that the voluntary acceptance of employment terms bars relief, emphasizing that unequal bargaining power between the state and job seekers nullifies the fairness of such contractual conditions.

Issues: Whether the state can validly impose a fresh period of fixed-pay remuneration on government employees who have previously served in contractual roles, and whether such prior service must be accounted for in terms of current pay and pension eligibility.

Ratio Decidendi: Employment terms that suppress wages below the regular scale for individuals performing identical duties, merely based on the method of recruitment or administrative transitions, are arbitrary. Equity, human dignity, and the principle of equal pay require that past service be honored to prevent the exploitation of labor within the government sector.

Result: Petitions allowed with directions to grant regular pay scales and process financial and retirement benefit adjustments.