The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the rights of part-time contractual instructors under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, holding that their honorarium must be periodically revised and cannot remain stagnant. The Court further ruled that reducing wages once enhanced amounts to forced labour under Article 23 of the Constitution, reinforcing the State’s obligation to ensure fair compensation for educators shaping the nation’s future.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case originated from a batch of appeals challenging the honorarium paid to part-time contractual instructors appointed under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (now Samagra Shiksha Scheme) in Uttar Pradesh. These instructors, engaged since 2013, were initially paid a fixed honorarium of Rs. 7,000 per month, despite possessing qualifications equivalent to regular teachers. Over the years, their honorarium was revised sporadically - Rs. 8,470 in 2016-17 and Rs. 9,800 in 2017-18 - but was later reduced back to Rs. 7,000 from 2019-20 onwards.
Procedural History
The dispute progressed through multiple stages:
- 2013: Instructors appointed under a contractual scheme with a fixed honorarium of Rs. 7,000 per month.
- 2016-17: Honorarium revised to Rs. 8,470 per month following a proposal to the Project Approval Board (PAB).
- 2017-18: PAB approved Rs. 17,000 per month, but the State unilaterally fixed it at Rs. 9,800.
- 2019-20: Honorarium reduced back to Rs. 7,000 per month.
- 2022: Allahabad High Court directed payment of Rs. 17,000 per month for 2017-18 only, prompting appeals to the Supreme Court.
Relief Sought
The instructors sought:
- Payment of Rs. 17,000 per month as honorarium from 2017-18 onwards.
- Periodic revision of honorarium to prevent stagnation.
- Recognition of their status as de facto permanent employees due to continuous engagement.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether part-time contractual instructors appointed under the RTE Act are entitled to periodic revision of their honorarium, and whether the State’s unilateral reduction of wages violates Article 23 of the Constitution prohibiting forced labour.
Arguments Presented
For the Instructors
- Stagnant Honorarium: The fixed honorarium of Rs. 7,000 per month was insufficient and violated the minimum wage standards applicable to unskilled workers.
- Periodic Revision: Once enhanced, honorarium could not be unilaterally reduced without violating principles of natural justice.
- De Facto Permanent Status: Continuous engagement for over a decade rendered their appointments substantive, entitling them to benefits akin to regular teachers.
- Article 23 Violation: The coercive reduction of wages, coupled with a contractual bar on seeking other employment, amounted to forced labour.
For the State of Uttar Pradesh
- Policy Matter: Fixation of honorarium was a policy decision, beyond judicial review.
- Contractual Terms: Instructors were bound by the initial contract, which fixed honorarium at Rs. 7,000 per month.
- Financial Burden: The State’s liability was limited to its 40% share under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme, with the Centre responsible for the remaining 60%.
- Alternative Remedies: Instructors should have exhausted statutory remedies under Section 24(3) of the RTE Act before approaching the High Court.
The Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court conducted a multi-faceted analysis, addressing the status of instructors, the legality of stagnant wages, and the State’s obligations under the RTE Act.
Status of Instructors
The Court rejected the nomenclature of "part-time contractual" instructors, holding:
- Not Contractual: The initial contract expired in 2017-18, and no fresh contracts were executed. Thus, their engagement could not be termed contractual.
- Not Part-Time: The contractual bar on seeking other employment rendered them de facto full-time teachers.
- Deemed Permanent: Continuous engagement for over a decade created deemed substantive posts, entitling them to benefits akin to regular teachers.
"The appointment of these instructors/teachers, even if held to be contractual, part-time, or temporary, is more or less of a permanent nature against posts deemed to have been created substantively."
Honorarium Revision
The Court held that honorarium could not remain stagnant and must be revised periodically:
- PAB’s Authority: The Project Approval Board (PAB) was the sole authority to fix and revise honorarium under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme.
- Unilateral Reduction Illegal: Once PAB approved Rs. 17,000 per month for 2017-18, the State could not unilaterally reduce it to Rs. 9,800 or Rs. 7,000.
- Periodic Revision: Honorarium must be revised at least once every three years to account for inflation and cost of living.
Violation of Article 23
The Court invoked Article 23, which prohibits forced labour, to strike down the stagnant honorarium:
- Economic Coercion: The contractual bar on seeking other employment, coupled with meagre wages, created a coercive cage, leaving instructors with no alternative but to accept reduced wages.
- Begar: The term "Begar" under Article 23 encompasses any form of forced labour, including economic compulsion to work for inadequate wages.
"Any unfair practice fixing remuneration of these instructors/teachers permanently as Rs. 7,000 per month or Rs. 8,470 per month for all times is a kind of forced labour amounting to ‘Begar’, which is strictly prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution."
State’s Obligations
The Court clarified the State’s financial responsibilities under Section 7(5) of the RTE Act:
- Primary Liability: The State must ensure payment of honorarium, even if the Centre fails to contribute its share.
- Pay and Recover: The State can recover the Centre’s contribution later but cannot deny payment to instructors.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the instructors and dismissed those filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court held:
- Instructors are entitled to Rs. 17,000 per month as honorarium from 2017-18 onwards.
- The PAB must revise honorarium periodically, at least once every three years.
- The State must pay arrears within six months from the judgment date and recover the Centre’s share later.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Honorarium Cannot Remain Stagnant
- Periodic Revision Mandatory: State Governments and PAB must ensure honorarium is revised at least once every three years to prevent stagnation.
- No Unilateral Reduction: Once enhanced, honorarium cannot be reduced without following principles of natural justice.
Contractual Labels Are Deceptive
- De Facto Permanent Status: Continuous engagement for over a decade creates deemed substantive posts, entitling instructors to benefits akin to regular teachers.
- Full-Time Equivalence: Contractual bars on seeking other employment render instructors de facto full-time employees.
State’s Financial Responsibility
- Primary Liability: The State must ensure payment of honorarium, even if the Centre defaults on its share.
- Pay and Recover: The principle of "pay and recover" applies, allowing the State to recover the Centre’s contribution later.
Article 23 Protects Against Economic Coercion
- Forced Labour: Stagnant or inadequate wages, coupled with contractual restrictions, may violate Article 23.
- Judicial Scrutiny: Courts will intervene where economic coercion amounts to forced labour, even in contractual employment.
