Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale on Wednesday (February 4) held that the Uttar Pradesh government’s continued engagement of primary school instructors/teachers on a fixed honorarium of Rs. 7,000 per month for over a decade amounted to “unfair practices” and a form of ‘begar’. The dispute centred on the non-implementation of an enhanced honorarium approved for these instructors/teachers and the subsequent payment of rates lower than those sanctioned, resulting in stagnant and low wages. Directing corrective payment, the Bench ordered the State to pay an honorarium of Rs. 17,000 per month to all such instructors/teachers with effect from the financial year 2017-18, commence payment at that rate from April 1, 2026, and clear arrears within six months.

The appeals arose from disputes concerning the honorarium payable to instructors appointed on a part-time contractual basis in Upper Primary Schools across Uttar Pradesh under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, later subsumed into the Samagra Shiksha Scheme. Pursuant to a Government Order dated 31 January 2013 and an advertisement dated 25 February 2013; instructors were appointed on contracts of eleven months with a fixed honorarium of ₹7,000 per month and a condition prohibiting engagement in any other employment.

Also Read: Alleged Forged Arbitration Agreement Renders Dispute Non-Arbitrable; Supreme Court

Despite continued engagement year after year since 2013–2014, the honorarium remained largely unchanged. Proposals were subsequently submitted to the Project Approval Board for enhancement of the honorarium. For 2016–2017, the honorarium was revised to ₹8,470 per month. For 2017–2018, the Project Approval Board approved an honorarium of ₹17,000 per month, which was accepted by the State Government but not implemented in full. Instead, lower amounts continued to be paid, and for 2019–2020, the honorarium was reduced again to ₹7,000 per month.

Aggrieved instructors approached the High Court, which directed payment of ₹17,000 per month only for 2017–2018. Appeals were thereafter filed by the instructors’ association, individual instructors, and the State Government, raising the issue of whether the honorarium was revisable and whether the reduction was lawful.

The Court answered the issue on entitlement to revision of honorarium by holding that “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.” It recorded, “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.”

On the funding responsibility, the Court stated, “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.” It recorded, “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.”

 It added, “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.” The Court further stated, “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.” It concluded, “The principle of “pay and recover” as such would be attracted and would be applicable.”

The Court then set out the following conclusions:

• “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;”

• “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;”

• “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;”

• “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;”

• “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 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 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;”

• “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;”

• “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 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.”

Also Read: Citing Franz Kafka, Delhi High Court Orders Premature Release Of Former President’s Bodyguard; Quashes SRB’s Mechanical Denials

The Court directed that “all these instructors/teachers are entitled to receive honorarium at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month with effect from 2017-18 till further revision takes place. The State Government shall start paying honorarium to them at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2026.”

“The arrears of which shall be paid to them by the State Government within a period of six months from today. The PAB shall periodically revise the honorarium fixed for these instructors/teachers, if not annually but once in three years. The initial burden to pay honorarium to the instructors/teachers is upon the State Government. The State Government may recover the contribution of the Central Government from the Union of India.”

Case Title: U.P. Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 9459 of 2023 and connected matters

Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Prasanna B. Varale