Libertatem Magazine

Tripura High Court Dismisses Demand for Stepping up of Salary of Aided School

Contents of this Page


The Petitioners were teachers in a grant-in-aid school. They joined in 2007. They were brought under They were granted the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme in 2017 after ten years of service. And received an increment in both grade pay and basic salary.  The Petitioners observed that three people junior to them were drawing more salary than them. The Petitioners approached the Court.

Arguments of the Petitioners

The Petitioners argued that this anomaly arose due to the granting of Assured Career Progression to their juniors and demanded that their pay should be stepped up to the level of the juniors as per the rules of the State of Tripura.

Arguments of the Respondents

The state opposed the demands of the Petitioners.  The state pointed out that the juniors worked in government-aided schools, not government schools. So both groups did not belong to the same cadre. Also, the state argued that the Petitioners were granted the benefit of ACP under the then applicable Rule of Pay (RoP) 2009 while the juniors were given the benefit of Modified ACP under RoP 2017.  So the facts did not justify the stepping up of salary

Analysis of the Court 

The Court analyzed through the government rules and observed that the criteria needed for stepping up of pay when a junior is promoted to the level of a senior and gets more salary are:

  1. Both senior and junior need to occupy the same cadre and identical post
  2. The level in the pay matrix of both  the posts should be identical
  3. The senior should be getting an equal or more salary before the promotion.
  4. The anomaly should be a result of FR 22(1)(a)(1).

The Court accepted the contention of the state that the Petitioners and the juniors were not a part of the same cadre. Also, the Petitioners were given the benefits of ACP under which they went upwards in the pay matrix. But the juniors were given the benefit of MACP  under which their pay matrix was not changed. So the two scenarios are not comparable.  The Petitioners cannot claim to step up as they got the benefit of a different scheme.


The Court dismissed the petitions.

Click here to view Judgement. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author