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

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