The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark ruling affirming that the State cannot perpetuate stagnant honorarium for contractual teachers implementing the Right to Education Act, holding that such practices amount to economic coercion and violate constitutional guarantees against forced labour.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centres on part-time contractual instructors appointed in Upper Primary Schools (Class VI-VIII) in Uttar Pradesh under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, later subsumed into the Samagra Shiksha Scheme. These instructors were initially hired on eleven-month contracts in 2013 with a fixed honorarium of Rs.7,000 per month, subject to renewal. Despite continuous service for over a decade, their pay remained frozen at this rate for years, even as recommendations for increases were made and partially implemented.
Procedural History
- 2013: State issued Government Order appointing instructors at Rs.7,000/month under NCTE norms.
- 2016-17: PAB approved honorarium enhancement to Rs.8,470/month; State implemented it.
- 2017-18: PAB approved Rs.17,000/month; Additional Chief Secretary issued order accepting it.
- 2018: Executive Committee of Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad unilaterally reduced it to Rs.9,800/month, then paid only Rs.8,470/month.
- 2019-20: Honorarium was arbitrarily slashed back to Rs.7,000/month.
- 2022: Allahabad High Court limited relief to Rs.17,000/month only for 2017-18.
- 2026: Appeals filed before Supreme Court challenging both the limitation of relief and the State’s refusal to pay enhanced rates.
Relief Sought
The instructors sought: (1) payment of Rs.17,000/month from 2017-18 onwards; (2) prohibition on future unilateral reductions; (3) recognition of their employment as substantive and permanent; and (4) periodic revision of honorarium by the Project Approval Board (PAB).
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether contractual instructors appointed under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are entitled to periodic revision of their honorarium, and whether the State’s unilateral reduction of an already enhanced rate violates Article 23 of the Constitution by amounting to forced labour.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners, represented by senior counsel P.S. Patwalia, argued that: (1) the Rs.7,000/month honorarium fell below the statutory minimum wage for unskilled labourers; (2) the State had repeatedly acknowledged the inadequacy of the rate by proposing increases; (3) once enhanced, the honorarium could not be reduced without due process; (4) the instructors performed full-time duties equivalent to regular teachers and were barred from other employment, making their status de facto permanent; and (5) Rule 20(3) of the RTE Rules mandates parity in pay with similarly placed teachers.
For the Respondent
The State, represented by Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, contended that: (1) the honorarium fixation is a policy decision beyond judicial review; (2) the instructors were contractual and bound by initial terms; (3) the financial burden is shared 60:40 with the Centre, and the State cannot bear the full cost; (4) the petitioners had not exhausted remedies under Section 24(3) of the Act; and (5) the High Court’s limited relief was appropriate given fiscal constraints.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive doctrinal analysis, rejecting the State’s reliance on contractual finality and policy discretion. It held that the nomenclature of "contractual" and "part-time" was a legal mischaracterisation. The instructors were prohibited from any other employment, worked full-time hours, possessed qualifications identical to regular teachers, and had served continuously for over ten years. These factors, the Court found, transformed their status into that of substantive appointees against deemed permanent posts.
"The moment Government prohibits these instructors/teachers from taking any part time or whole-time job anywhere else, they should de facto be treated as full time teachers."
The Court further examined Article 23, which prohibits forced labour, and relied on People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India to hold that economic compulsion - where workers are forced to accept wages below subsistence due to lack of alternatives - constitutes forced labour. The instructors, barred from other work and facing no recourse against wage cuts, were found to be in a state of economic coercion.
The Court also clarified the role of the Project Approval Board (PAB) under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme. It held that PAB, as the sole national authority with exclusive financial powers, alone has the competence to fix and revise honorarium. No State-level committee may override its decisions. The PAB’s approval of Rs.17,000/month in 2017 was binding and could not be unilaterally reduced.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that it could withhold payment pending Central Government funding. Section 7(5) of the RTE Act places the primary responsibility on the State to provide funds, with a right to recover the Centre’s share later under the "pay and recover" principle.
The Verdict
The petitioners won. The Supreme Court held that contractual instructors under the RTE Act are entitled to periodic revision of honorarium, and that unilateral reduction of an enhanced rate violates Article 23. The Court directed payment of Rs.17,000 per month from 2017-18 onwards, with arrears to be paid within six months. The PAB must revise honorarium at least once every three years.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Contractual Labels Cannot Override Substantive Reality
- Practitioners must challenge the use of "contractual" or "temporary" labels when employees perform continuous, integral duties for over a decade.
- Courts will look beyond nomenclature to actual work conditions, exclusivity clauses, and duration of service.
- Instructors/teachers barred from other employment are de facto full-time, regardless of contract terms.
Honorarium Must Be Periodically Revised, Not Frozen
- Fixed honorariums for long-term service providers are now legally untenable.
- Any enhancement, once implemented, cannot be reversed without due process and justification.
- Wage stagnation below minimum wage standards triggers Article 23 scrutiny.
PAB’s Financial Authority Is Final and Non-Delegable
-
Only the Project Approval Board (PAB) under Samagra Shiksha has authority to fix or revise honorarium.
-
State-level committees cannot override PAB decisions.
-
Practitioners must direct all financial claims to PAB and challenge any State interference as ultra vires.
-
Actionable Takeaway: File writ petitions seeking revision of honorarium where: (1) service exceeds 5 years; (2) pay is below minimum wage; (3) employer prohibits outside employment; and (4) PAB has previously approved higher rates.
-
Litigation Strategy: Cite People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Section 7(5) of RTE Act to establish State’s primary liability and the unconstitutionality of wage suppression.
-
Policy Note: Advocate for institutionalizing triennial revision mechanisms in State education schemes to avoid future litigation.
