Supreme Court Allows West Bengal Part-Time Teachers Seeking Equal Pay As Full-Time Teachers To Make Fresh Representation

Disposing of a contempt petition, the Supreme Court today allowed certain part-time teachers in the State of West Bengal to make a fresh representation before the School Education Department Secretary for pay parity with full-time teachers teaching in non-government aided higher secondary schools. It ordered that the competent authority shall pass a reasoned order on the representations within 4 months.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment.

Reading the operative part in open Court, Justice Mehta said,

"We hereby grant liberty to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation before the Secretary (School Education Department) within a period of 6 weeks from today, setting out their entire grievances, claims and entitlements in terms of the order passed by the High Court. The Secretary shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in representative capacity. The corresponding records pertaining to the engagement of the petitioners shall be summoned from the respective schools prior to proceeding with the hearing and the parties shall be permitted to inspect the same. The competent authority shall pass a detailed, reasoned order after considering the representations and submissions within a period of 4 months from today. If any adverse order is passed, it shall be open to the petitioners to avail such remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law."

"Don't come here!", remarked Justice Nath in jest, after Justice Mehta read the excerpt.

To recap, a State Government order dated 28 July 2010 extended the benefit of 10 days casual leave and 10 days medical leave to the contractual part-time teachers subject to the condition that the part-time teachers would have to take the same number of classes per week like a regular and full-time teacher.

Aggrieved by the act of the Department in not treating some part-time teachers as equal with the regular teachers, writ petitions were filed before the High Court. One writ petition was filed for extending the benefit of equal pay for equal work in connection with the service of part-time teachers of Khandra High School District - Burdwan.

The writ petition was disposed of by a Single Bench by directing the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, School Education Department to take a decision in the matter by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law by 31 December, 2013.

In terms of the Court's direction, the Secretary, Government of West Bengal, School Education Department decided the matter against the petitioner and observed that the service of the petitioner cannot be regularized as a permanent teacher.

It was observed that the petitioners were appointed on purely contractual basis in a part-time post only for Higher Secondary section of the schools and the State Government till date had not issued any order to regularize the appointment of part-time teachers against any permanent vacancy.

Further, the extension of 10 days casual leave and 10 days medical leave in a year to the contractual teachers does not imply that the part-time teacher will be treated as a permanent teacher, and it was meant only for providing leave to the part-time contractual teachers who were willing to take classes regularly.

The order was challenged before a Single Judge Bench which allowed the writ petition on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Single Judge held that the writ petitioners could not be treated as separate and distinct class or said to be claiming benefits for a scale of duties that is outside the post and profile of the petitioners. The Bench directed the authorities to take steps for payment of salaries and other benefits to the writ petitioners equal to that of the regular scale of pay and at par with the full-time permanent teachers of the concerned school. This was directed to be made effective from 27 April, 2007, which was the date of the order restraining any further appointment of any new part-time teachers on contract basis in Non-Government Higher Secondary Schools with effect from 1 April, 2007.

In September 2020, on State's appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court modified the Single Judge's order and directed that the payment be made with effect from 28 July, 2010 to 24 December 2013 when the Government order of 28 July stood withdrawn. The arrears were to be cleared in 4 weeks. Concerning the period from April 2007 to December 2009 and after 24.12.2013, the Court asked the Secretary (School Education Department) to decide in time-bound manner any representations by the writ petitioners, if made, in justification of basic pay, demonstrating discharge of similar duties. The Court further ordered that the Secretary pass a reasoned order and suggested the government to sympathetically consider extending some more benefits to the part-time teachers.

Aggrieved, the State approached the Supreme Court.

In September 2021, the top Court stayed the Division Bench order. In July 2024, the State's appeal was dismissed, directing it to comply with the Division Bench judgment in 3 months. The relief was extended to all similarly placed private-respondents and intervenors.

Subsequently, the present contempt petition was filed. It was stated that the government had paid the arrears for the period 28.07.2010 to 24.12.2013. However, claims for the period from 24 July 2007 to 27 July 2010 and after 25 December 2013 remained unaddressed. "According to the Court's directions, Respondent/Alleged Contemnor No.1 was required to evaluate whether part-time teachers performed duties similar to full-time teachers during those periods and determine their eligibility for arrears accordingly...Nevertheless, on 15.01.2025, Respondent No.2/Alleged Contemnor No.2, under the direction of Respondent No.1, rejected the part-time teachers' equal pay claims for the specified periods", the petition said.

The petitioners highlighted that the rejection order was based on organizational and managerial differences between part-time and full-time teachers, which arguments were rejected by the Courts. They contended that the respondents were supposed to evaluate whether part-time teachers' "responsibilities" matched with full-time teachers', but the rejection order failed to do so and "perpetuated unfair treatment".

"[the rejection order] has the absurd consequence that despite succeeding before all 3 Courts, the part-time teachers would not be entitled to any parity with full-time teachers at present and would be entitled to arrears for only 3 years of service (2010-2013)."

They asserted that the rejection order was in contempt of the Supreme Court's order of July, 2024, which recognized the right of part-time teachers to claim equal pay as given to full-time teachers.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani (for petitioners); Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rakesh Dwivedi and Kalyan Banerjee (for West Bengal)

Case Title: GURUPADA BERA AND ORS. Versus BINOD KUMAR AND ORS., Diary No. 18826-2025 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 9

Click here to read the judgment