Tripura HC sets aside order granting higher pay scale to junior draftsmen

The High Court of Tripura has allowed an appeal filed by the state government and set aside a single-judge order that had granted a higher revised pay scale to a group of junior draftsmen in the Public Works Department (PWD).

A division bench of Justice T Amarnath Goud and Justice S Datta Purkayastha, in its judgment held that the petitioners, who were appointed as Draftsman Grade III under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1982, were not entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs 1,450-3,710 under the 1988 Revised Pay Rules.

The court observed that Draftsman Grade III posts were redesignated as Junior Draftsman under the 1988 Rules and carried the corresponding revised pay scale of Rs 1,300-3,220. It said the higher pay scale of Rs 1,450-3,710 was applicable to Draftsman Grade II, redesignated as Draftsman, and not to Junior Draftsmen.

The bench held that redesignation of draftsmen posts under the 1988 Rules was based on the category of posts and not merely on the earlier pay scales. It also noted that while the Surveyor cadre underwent restructuring with the creation of an additional entry-level category, the Draftsman cadre retained three categories through redesignation.

Referring to a Finance Department memorandum issued on April 28, 1990, the court said it clarified that appointments made before publication of the 1988 Rules would receive the revised pay scale corresponding to the existing post, but this did not alter the categorisation of Draftsman Grade III posts.

The bench rejected the contention that Junior Draftsmen were entitled to parity with Surveyors and said the two cadres could not be equated for the purpose of pay revision.

The court also relied on Supreme Court judgments and observed that matters relating to service structure, pay scales, cadre classification and promotional avenues fall within the policy domain of the government and that the principle of equal pay for equal work could not be invoked where recruitment processes, qualifications and duties differ.

The appeal challenged a February 27, 2025 order of a single judge in WP(C) No. 637 of 2023, which had directed the state to grant the petitioners the higher pay scale with consequential benefits while restricting arrears to three years preceding the filing of the writ petition.