The Delhi High Court Division Bench has dismissed a batch of intra-court appeals filed by the Punjabi Academy and the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, upholding a Single Judge's direction to re-fix the salaries of part-time Punjabi teachers at 50 percent of the pay drawn by regularly appointed Assistant or Primary Teachers. The judgment reinforces the statutory mandate of Rule 101(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, and the precedent set in Durraj Fatima Naqvi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, holding that long-serving contractual teachers cannot be paid wages below the minimum wage without violating Article 23 and Article 14 of the Constitution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, Punjabi Academy (a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and fully funded by GNCTD) and the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, challenged the judgment dated 15.07.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge. The Single Judge had allowed writ petitions filed by part-time Punjabi teachers appointed by the Punjabi Academy and deployed in schools run by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The teachers, initially appointed between 1986 and 1991 (with two appointed in 2004 and 2010), claimed entitlement to 50 percent of the salary of regularly appointed teachers, relying on the Division Bench judgment in Durraj Fatima Naqvi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (decided 17.09.2010) and Rani & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (decided 11.05.2016). The Single Judge directed re-fixation of salaries within eight weeks, payment of arrears within four weeks thereafter, and interest at 6 percent per annum from due dates until actual payment.
Key Facts
- The Punjabi Academy introduced a Punjabi Language Teaching Scheme to promote Punjabi in schools with student demand, deploying part-time teachers on a need basis.
- Majority of writ petitioners were appointed between 1986 and 1991; two were appointed in 2004 and 2010.
- Initial monthly wages were Rs.500 and Rs.600, increased over the years to Rs.600 (primary), Rs.700 (middle), and Rs.800 (senior/secondary).
- Further increases occurred in 2000 and 2007.
- 28.05.2016: Cabinet decision fixed remuneration based on Consumer Price Index norms: TGT (Untrained) M.A. Gyani at Rs.8,150; TGT (Untrained) B.A. Gyani at Rs.7,520; Assistant Teacher (Untrained) Secondary/Senior Secondary at Rs.6,580.
- Part-time Assistant Teachers (untrained) with Class 10+2 qualifications drew Rs.7,168; B.A. holders Rs.8,192; M.A. holders Rs.8,885.
- 26.09.2024: Labour Department notification fixed minimum wages at Rs.18,066 (unskilled), Rs.19,929 (semi-skilled), and Rs.21,917 (skilled).
- Teachers performed not only teaching but also administrative work such as setting question papers, invigilation, and evaluation.
- In Durraj Fatima, part-time Urdu teachers engaged by Urdu Academy (similarly structured) were paid Rs.5,000 - 5,500 while regular teachers with equal service drew Rs.45,000. The Division Bench directed 50 percent parity based on Rule 101(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
- Rani & Ors. extended the same benefit to part-time Punjabi teachers, holding them identically placed.
Procedural History
- Writ petitions filed by part-time Punjabi teachers before the High Court claiming salary parity under Durraj Fatima and Rani.
- 15.07.2025: Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, directing salary re-fixation at 50 percent of regular teacher salary, arrears payment within four weeks of re-fixation, and interest at 6% per annum.
- 2026: Punjabi Academy and Directorate of Education filed intra-court appeals (LPA 29/2026 and 20+ connected matters) challenging the Single Judge's judgment.
- 17.08.2026: Judgment reserved by Division Bench.
- 24.08.2026: Judgment delivered dismissing all appeals.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought setting aside of the Single Judge's judgment, contending that the writ petitioners lacked B.Ed degrees unlike the Urdu teachers in Durraj Fatima, and that the notification dated 23.08.2010 under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 prescribed higher qualifications. The teachers sought enforcement of the Single Judge's directions.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether part-time Punjabi teachers appointed by Punjabi Academy and deployed in MCD schools are entitled to 50 percent of the salary of regularly appointed teachers under Rule 101(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, despite not possessing B.Ed degrees; (2) Whether the distinction based on educational qualifications can defeat the statutory mandate and the precedent in Durraj Fatima; (3) Whether the State's failure to pay even minimum wages to long-serving contractual teachers violates Articles 14 and 23 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the teachers in Durraj Fatima were all trained teachers holding B.Ed or equivalent degrees, whereas the present writ petitioners lacked such qualifications. They contended that the notification dated 23.08.2010 issued under Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 prescribed minimum qualifications for teachers, and that the subsequent notification dated 26.09.2024 reinforced these standards. They submitted that the claim for 50 percent salary parity was not sustainable without the requisite professional qualifications.
For the Respondent
Counsel for the teachers contended that the writ petitioners were appointed after fulfilling the qualifications stipulated in the respective advertisements, a fact uncontroverted by the appellants. They argued that Durraj Fatima did not hinge on educational qualifications but on the unconscionably low wages paid after decades of service. They highlighted the notification dated 23.08.2010 which exempted teachers appointed prior to its issuance from acquiring higher qualifications. They invoked Article 23 (prohibition of forced labour) and the model employer doctrine, submitting that payment of wages below the notified minimum wage for unskilled labour constituted exploitation.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, endorsed the Single Judge's reasoning in full. The Court examined Rule 101 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, noting that Sub-rule (1) permits engagement of part-time teachers in primary schools on a regular basis, while Sub-rule (2) mandates that their salary and allowances shall be one-half of those of a full-time teacher appointed on a regular basis. The proviso further requires that medical facilities and other benefits (excluding pensionary benefits) be the same as for full-time teachers.
"If there is a mandate of law, the same cannot be violated by the Executive and there cannot be a contract contrary to law. Contractual appointments of part-time teachers, even if resorted to, has to be as per the Statute and thus under no circumstances can Part Time Teachers be paid salary and other allowances less than one-half of what is paid to the Full-Time Teachers appointed on a regular basis."
The Court held that the statutory mandate under Rule 101(2) is binding and cannot be circumvented by contractual designations. The distinction based on B.Ed degrees was rejected because the teachers were appointed per the advertised qualifications, and Durraj Fatima did not predicate its decision on qualifications. The notification dated 23.08.2010 under the RTE Act expressly exempted pre-existing appointees. The Court also relied on Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam (2026 SCC OnLine SC 909), where the Supreme Court disapproved the practice of retaining employees for decades under deceptive designations while extracting regular work, emphasizing the State's constitutional obligation as a model employer to act with fairness, consistency, and reasonableness.
The Bench found that denying even 50 percent of the regular teacher's salary - when the teachers were paid less than half the minimum wage for unskilled labour - was "absolutely arbitrary" and failed the test of Article 14. The Court expressed shock that despite the Durraj Fatima judgment being complied with for Urdu teachers, the same benefit was resisted for Punjabi teachers performing identical duties.
The Verdict
The Division Bench dismissed all intra-court appeals, affirming the Single Judge's judgment dated 15.07.2025 in its entirety. The appellants are directed to comply with the directions - re-fixation of salaries at 50 percent of regularly appointed Assistant/Primary Teacher pay, payment of arrears within four weeks of re-fixation, and interest at 6 percent per annum from due dates until actual payment - within eight weeks from the date of this judgment (24.08.2026). No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Mandate Overrides Contractual Designations
- Rule 101(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 creates a non-derogable floor: part-time teachers on regular engagement must receive at least half the salary and allowances of full-time regular counterparts.
- Executive instructions or cabinet decisions cannot dilute this statutory entitlement; any contract contrary to the Rule is unenforceable.
- Practitioners should invoke Rule 101(2) directly in wage disputes involving part-time teachers in Delhi schools, regardless of the employing agency (Academy, Directorate, or MCD).
Qualifications Cannot Defeat Statutory Entitlement
- Where teachers were appointed meeting the qualifications advertised at the time, subsequent enhancement of qualification norms (including under the RTE Act) does not apply retrospectively to deny statutory wage protection.
- The 23.08.2010 notification under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act explicitly exempts teachers appointed before its date; this exemption is a complete answer to qualification-based challenges.
- Courts will not allow the State to benefit from its own failure to upgrade qualifications or regularise services over decades.
Model Employer Obligation Extends to Minimum Wage Compliance
- The State, as a model employer, is constitutionally bound under Articles 14, 23, 39, 41, and 42 to ensure wages are not exploitative.
- Payment below the notified minimum wage for unskilled labour to employees performing skilled teaching and administrative duties for 20 - 30 years violates Article 23's prohibition on forced labour.
- Sukhendu Bhattacharjee establishes that long, continuous service triggers a heightened duty of fairness; retaining staff under "deceptively titled designations" while extracting regular work is impermissible.
- Lawyers should frame wage parity claims as enforcement of fundamental rights, not merely contractual or statutory claims, to attract the Court's constitutional jurisdiction.
