Gist of the Judgment:

The Tripura High Court has held that a retired High Court Judge cannot claim remuneration merely because he was appointed as Chairman of a fee regulatory committee when there is no material to show that the committee actually performed the functions for which it was constituted. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit delivered the judgment on September 2, 2026, in Justice (Retired) Alok Baran Pal v. The State of Tripura & Ors., WA No. 32 of 2026.

Background

Justice (Retd.) Alok Baran Pal was appointed by the Government of Tripura on June 10, 2010, as Chairman of a five-member committee constituted to determine the fee structure of private technical institutions in the State. The committee was constituted pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 697.

After ceasing to hold other remunerative positions, the retired Judge sought remuneration from December 1, 2018, contending that the committee had never been formally reconstituted and that he continued to hold the position of Chairman. The State Government rejected his claim in May 2023. His writ petition was subsequently dismissed by the Single Judge, leading to the present writ appeal.

What the High Court Held

The Division Bench found that there was no pleading or material demonstrating that the appellant had actually undertaken the work entrusted to the committee. In particular, there was no material showing that applications had been invited from private technical institutions or that any exercise had been undertaken for determining their fee structure.

The Court therefore held that mere appointment to the position of Chairman could not, by itself, create an entitlement to remuneration when no work had actually been performed. The Bench observed that merely because the committee had apparently been constituted in 2010, the appellant could not claim remuneration when he had not “turned out any work.”

Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas’ Appointment

The State had also relied upon the fact that Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas, a retired Judge of the Calcutta High Court, had expressed willingness in 2016 to take over as Chairman of the committee. The Division Bench, however, clarified that such willingness by itself did not formally reconstitute the committee. A proper Government notification was required for that purpose.

State Government Also Pulled Up

While denying the retired Judge’s claim for remuneration, the Court expressed serious concern over the State Government’s failure to make the fee regulatory mechanism functional for nearly 23 years. The Bench noted that the committee had effectively remained only “on paper” without adequate rules, remuneration, staff or infrastructure. This failure had left private technical institutions without an effective mechanism for regulation of their fees.

The Court accordingly directed the State Government to constitute and operationalise the Technical Institutions Fee Regulatory Committee, prescribe the remuneration and service conditions of its Chairman and members, and provide the committee with necessary staff and infrastructure. The exercise was directed to be completed within one month.

Legal Significance

The judgment draws an important distinction between appointment to an office and actual performance of the functions attached to that office. While the Court recognised the State’s obligation to provide a properly constituted and functional fee regulatory committee in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions, it declined to treat a dormant appointment as sufficient basis for claiming remuneration.

The judgment also reinforces that an administrative committee cannot ordinarily be treated as reconstituted merely through an informal nomination or willingness to assume office; the competent Government authority must take the necessary formal steps.

Case: Justice (Retired) Alok Baran Pal v. The State of Tripura & Ors.
Case No.: WA No. 32 of 2026
Decision: September 2, 2026
Bench: Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit.