Paying Primary Teachers Rs 7000 Monthly For Ten Years Is Bonded Labour: Supreme Court Asks UP Govt To Pay 17K

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (February 4) criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for engaging in “unfair practices,” subjecting the state's primary school teachers/instructors to a form of 'begar' by paying them a meager fixed honorarium of Rs. 7,000 per month for over a decade.

Finding that the wages received by teachers were stagnant and low, a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale directed the state government to pay an honorarium of Rs. 17,000 per month to all such teachers, effective from the financial year 2017-18, with arrears to be cleared within six months.

“…part time contractual instructors/teachers appointed in the Upper Primary School in the State of U.P. are entitled to revision of their honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month which was initially fixed for the contract period of eleven months in the year 2013 and that the said revision has to take place, if not annually then periodically as per the discretion of the PAB. Since the PAB for the year 2017-18 had determined the said honorarium to be Rs.17,000/- per month, all instructors/teachers appointed under the scheme are entitled for the payment of the same at the above rate of Rs.17,000/- per month with effect from 2017-18 till further revision takes place.”, the court said.

The dispute originated from a 2013 Government Order by the Uttar Pradesh government, appointing instructors for physical education, art, and work education on a fixed monthly honorarium of Rs. 7,000 for an 11-month contract, renewable annually under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan (now merged into Samagra Shiksha Scheme, launched in 2018). Despite recommendations and approvals for enhancement, including a Project Approval Board (PAB) sanction of Rs. 17,000 per month for 2017-18, the teachers continued to receive paltry sums, which were even reduced back to Rs. 7,000 from 2019-20.

During the hearing, the main reason supplied by the state government was about the lacking of funding by the Central Government of its share under the scheme. It was submitted by the State government that under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme (which succeeded Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan), the financial burden for such centrally sponsored schemes is shared in a 60:40 ratio (Centre:State). The State contended that if the Central Government did not release its 60% share, the State could not be compelled to bear the full cost.

The Court rejected this argument outrightly, holding that the scheme's funding pattern cannot override the statutory mandate of Section 7(5) of the Right to Education Act,2009. The Court added that the financial arrangements between governments are internal administrative matters that cannot be used to defeat the rights of teachers and, by extension, the right to quality education for children.

The Court said that “the initial burden to pay honorarium to the instructors/teachers is upon the State Government who is free to recover the contribution of the Central Government from the Union of India on the principle of “pay & recover.”

“A simple reading of the aforesaid provision reveals that the State Government shall take into account not only the sums provided by the Central Government to the State Government but also its other resources and shall be responsible to provide funds for the implementation of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, an onerous duty has been cast upon the State Government to implement the provisions of the Act vis-à-vis the payment of honorarium to the instructors/teachers. Therefore, in all earnest, it is primary duty of the State Government to pay honorarium to the instructors/teachers appointed under the Act or the scheme formulated thereunder. 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 principle of “pay and recover” as such would be attracted and would be applicable.”, the court added.

Following conclusions were drawn:

i) The appointment of the part time or contractual instructors/teachers in fact no longer remains contractual in nature once the contract period of eleven months for which they were initially appointed or the extended contract period stood expired;

ii) They were not even part time instructors/teachers as they were specifically prohibited for taking any job or part time employment elsewhere during their spare time;

iii) In fact, these instructors/teachers having continued continuously for over ten years in a row are deemed to be employed permanently against deemed substantive posts, as with the passage of time and keeping in mind the continuity of the work, such posts stand automatically created;

iv) The PAB is the sole central authority to manage budget and finances under the Act and the scheme and to fix honorarium for the instructors/teachers appointed thereunder. No other authority has any say in the matter concerning finance and budget consequently in the fixation of honorarium;

v) The PAB having once approved the proposal for fixing Rs.17,000/- per month as honorarium to these 44 instructors/teachers, no authority can sit over such a decision and pass orders contrary to it;

vi) The initial burden to pay honorarium to the instructors/teachers is upon the State Government who is free to recover the contribution of the Central Government from the Union of India on the principle of “pay & recover”;

vii) The honorarium payable to these instructors/teachers cannot be permitted to remain stagnant and the same is revisable periodically at least once in three years by the PAB or any other authority as may be determined by the Central Government/State Government under the scheme or the modified scheme;

viii) Any action of the State/Union Government to employ instructors/teachers on a fixed honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month as was initially fixed in 2013-14 amounts to 'Begar' and unfair practice which is violative of Article 23 of the Constitution;

ix) The PAB having fixed honorarium to these instructors/teachers at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month with effect from the year 2017-18, the State Government/Central 45 Government is not justified in paying them at a lesser rate of either Rs.8,470/- or Rs.9,800/- or at the basic rate of Rs.7,000/- per month.

Headnote

Constitution of India – Article 21A and Article 23 – Right to Education and Prohibition of Forced Labour – Contractual Teachers – Honorarium Revision – The Supreme Court held that part-time contractual instructors appointed under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (now Samagra Shiksha Scheme) in Upper Primary Schools are entitled to periodic revision of their honorarium – Noted that keeping such teachers on a stagnant, meager honorarium (initially ₹7,000/-) for over a decade, while prohibiting them from taking other employment, amounts to "economic coercion" and "forced labour" (Begar) prohibited under Article 23.

Service Jurisprudence – Deemed Permanency and Substantive Appointment – Supreme Court ruled that instructors continuing for over ten years in a row against mandatory student-teacher ratio requirements acquire a degree of permanency - Even if originally contractual, these appointments are treated as "substantive in character" because they were made through a public selection process and the nature of work is permanent and integral to the institution - The PAB is the sole central authority with financial powers to approve budgets and fix honoraria under the scheme - Once the PAB approved a proposal to pay ₹17,000/- per month, the State Executive Committee had no authority to unilaterally reduce or ignore this determination.

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Section 7(5) and Rule 20(3) – The State Government has an "onerous duty" to provide funds for the Act's implementation - Under Rule 20(3), instructors must be paid at par with regular teachers having similar qualifications and experience - The State cannot deny payment citing the Central Government's failure to release its 60% share; the State must "pay and recover" the balance from the Union - Reaffirmed that the existence of an alternative remedy (under Section 24(3) of the Act) is a rule of "prudence and self-restraint," not an absolute bar - Since the matter was already adjudicated on merits by the High Court, relegating parties to an alternative forum would defeat the ends of justice - directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay an honorarium of ₹17,000/- per month to all instructors with effect from 2017-18. [Relied on Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Union of India (2008) 5 SCC 632; Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 107; Jaggo v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 SCC Online SC 3826; People's Union For Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 3 SCC 235; Paras 41-69].

Cause Title: U.P. JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL COUNCIL INSTRUCTOR WELFARE ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. VERSUS ANURAG AND ORS. (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 110

Click here to download judgment