In a significant verdict impacting thousands of educators, the Supreme Court has directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay an honorarium of Rs. 17,000 per month to part-time contractual instructors in Upper Primary Schools, effective from the academic year 2017-18.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that the employment of instructors on a fixed honorarium of Rs. 7,000 per month, which was unilaterally reduced after being enhanced, amounts to “Begar” and is a violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
Background of the Dispute
The case arose from the appointment of part-time instructors/teachers in Upper Primary Schools (Class VI-VIII) under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan (now Samagra Shiksha Scheme). Pursuant to a Government Order dated January 31, 2013, instructors were appointed on a contract basis for eleven months with a fixed honorarium of Rs. 7,000 per month to impart physical education, art, and work education.
The contract stipulated that these instructors could not “directly or indirectly take up any part-time or whole-time job anywhere else.” While their contracts were renewed annually, the honorarium remained largely stagnant.
In 2017-18, the Project Approval Board (PAB) of the Central Government approved a proposal to enhance the honorarium to Rs. 17,000 per month. The State Government accepted this proposal via a letter dated June 2, 2017. However, the Executive Committee of the Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad subsequently reduced this to Rs. 9,800, and actual payments were made at Rs. 8,470. Shockingly, for the year 2019-20, the PAB approved a reduced honorarium of Rs. 7,000, reverting to the 2013 figure.
Aggrieved by the stagnation and reduction of wages, the Instructor Welfare Association and individual teachers approached the High Court. The Allahabad High Court, by a judgment dated December 2, 2022, directed the payment of Rs. 17,000 only for the year 2017-18. Both the State and the Teachers’ Association appealed to the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Court
Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia, appearing for the instructors, argued that Rs. 7,000 per month did not meet minimum wage standards and defeated the purpose of the Right to Education Act, 2009. He contended that once the PAB approved Rs. 17,000, the State could not resile from it. He also highlighted the arbitrary nature of reducing the honorarium back to Rs. 7,000 from 2019-20 onwards.
Senior Advocate Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the statutory remedies under Section 24(3) of the Act had not been exhausted. He submitted that the fixation of honorarium is a policy decision outside the court’s purview. The State also contended that the financial burden was to be shared by the Central and State governments in a 60:40 ratio, and the Centre had failed to contribute its share.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
1. Rejection of Preliminary Objections The Court rejected the State’s argument regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. Relying on Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Union of India and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the Bench held that the existence of an alternative remedy is a rule of prudence, not compulsion, especially when the matter has already been adjudicated on merits by the High Court.
2. Status of “Part-Time” Contractual Instructors The Court strongly criticized the labeling of these educators as “part-time” or “contractual.” The Bench observed that since the contract prohibited them from taking any other employment, they were “de facto full-time teachers.”
Justice Mithal, writing for the Bench, observed:
“The nomenclature used to describe the instructors/teachers as part time contractual teachers is completely deceptive… The moment Government prohibits these instructors/teachers from taking any part time or whole-time job anywhere else, they should de facto be treated as full time teachers.”
The Court further noted that having continued for over ten years, their appointments had acquired a “degree of permanency” against deemed substantive posts.
3. Violation of Article 23 (Forced Labour) The Court held that fixing the remuneration permanently at Rs. 7,000 or Rs. 8,470 constitutes economic coercion. Citing People’s Union For Democratic Rights v. Union of India, the Court stated:
“Any unfair practice fixing remuneration of these instructors/teachers permanently as Rs. 7,000/- per month or Rs. 8,470/- per month for all times is a kind of forced labour amounting to ‘Begar’ which is strictly prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution.”
4. Supremacy of the Project Approval Board (PAB) The judgment clarified that under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme, the PAB is the sole authority to sanction budgets and fix honorariums. The State-level Executive Committee has no financial powers to override the PAB.
“The PAB having once approved the proposal for fixing Rs.17,000/- per month as honorarium to these instructors/teachers, no authority can sit over such a decision and pass orders contrary to it,” the Court held.
5. State’s Financial Liability Referring to Section 7(5) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Court ruled that the State Government is responsible for providing funds. The Court invoked the principle of “pay and recover,” stating:
“In the event, the Central Government fails to contribute its share of finances, the State Government is free to recover it from the Central Government but cannot deny payment to instructors/teachers.”
The Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Welfare Association and the teachers, while dismissing the State’s appeals. The Court issued the following key directions:
- Entitlement: All instructors/teachers appointed under the scheme are entitled to an honorarium of Rs. 17,000 per month with effect from the academic year 2017-18.
- Continuity: This rate applies until further revision takes place. The reduction to Rs. 7,000 in subsequent years was declared illegal.
- Payment Schedule: The State Government must start paying the current honorarium at the rate of Rs. 17,000 per month w.e.f. April 01, 2026.
- Arrears: The arrears from 2017-18 must be paid by the State Government within six months from the date of the judgment.
- Periodic Revision: The PAB is directed to revise the honorarium periodically, at least once every three years.
- Recovery: The State Government is at liberty to recover the Central Government’s contribution from the Union of India.
The Court concluded that the practice of employing teachers on a fixed honorarium of Rs. 7,000 for over a decade amounts to unfair practice and violation of constitutional rights.
Case Details:
- Case Title: U.P. Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (and connected matters)
- Case No.: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 9459 of 2023)
- Coram: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
