RTE Act | State Can't Justify Low Pay To Teachers Citing Centre's Failure To Release Funds : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a State Government cannot justify paying meagre honorarium to teachers by citing the Central Government's failure to release its share of funds, ruling that the primary responsibility to implement the Right to Education Act rests with the State, which must pay teachers first and may recover the Centre's contribution later.

A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, while directing the Uttar Pradesh Government to pay Rs.17,000 per month as honorarium to part-time instructors engaged under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and Samagra Shiksha schemes, relied on Section 7(5) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which casts an overriding duty on States to fund implementation of the Act.

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.”

The case concerned a 2013 Government Order by the Uttar Pradesh government, appointing 10,000 instructors/teachers 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.

The State of Uttar Pradesh had contended before the Court that under the centrally sponsored Samagra Shika Scheme, the financial burden was shared in a 60:40 ratio (Centre:State). The State argued that when the Central Government did not release its 60% share for the enhanced honorarium of Rs. 17,000 per month, which had been approved by the Project Approval Board (PAB) in 2017, the State could not be compelled to bear the full cost.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale out rightly rejected state's argument, holding that States bear primary responsibility for implementing the Right to Education Act and cannot use financial disputes with the Centre to deny teachers their legitimate right to dignified honorarium.

“Though, Section 7 of the Act provides for sharing of financial responsibilities between the State/Union Territories and the Central Government and casts a liability upon both the Governments to share the financial burden in such percentage as may be determined from time to time by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government. Nonetheless, Section 7 (5) of the Act, in unequivocal terms, saddles the State Government with the responsibility to provide funds for the implementation of the provisions of the Act.”, the court observed.

State Must “Pay” And May “Recover” Later From Union Govt.

“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 observed.

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

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