Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.9459 of 2023)
U.P. JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL COUNCIL
INSTRUCTOR WELFARE ASSOCIATION …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1744-1749 of 2026)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. .… APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ANURAG AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 3331-3334 of 2024)
ANURAG AND ANR. .… APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Leave granted.
1
2. Education, that too good education at least up to the primary
level based upon values and morals, is fundamental to the
progress of the nation.
3. Accepting the above fundamental principle, the Constitution
(Eighty-Sixth Amendment Act), 2002 vide Section 2, inserted
Article 21A in the Constitution of India with effect from
01.04.2010 recognizing Right to Education to all children
between the age of 6-14 years.
4. Article 21A reads as under :-
“ 21A. Right to education. – The State shall
provide free and compulsory education to all
children of the age of six to fourteen years in
such manner as the State may, by law,
determine ”
5. In furtherance of the above objective, the Right of Children to
1
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was enacted on
26.08.2009 to provide free and compulsory education to all
children of the age of 6-14 years.
6. The State of U.P., to promote primary education, adopted the
centrally sponsored scheme of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan (now
merged into Samagra Shiksha Scheme , launched in 2018) and
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act”
2
decided to appoint part time instructors/teachers on
contractual basis in Upper Primary Schools (Class VI-VIII)
throughout the State of U.P.
7. In order to implement the above programme, the State of U.P.
issued a Government Order dated 31.01.2013, contemplating
to appoint part time instructors/teachers on contractual basis
on a fixed honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month to impart
physical education, education in art and work education. The
said Government Order stipulated for appointment of one
instructor/teacher for every one hundred students and
prescribed the eligibility conditions and the minimum
qualifications for the appointment of such instructors/teachers
in accordance with the norms set out by the National Council
2
for Teacher Education .
8. Under the above programme, an advertisement dated
25.02.2013 was issued by the State of U.P. inviting
applications from eligible candidates for appointment as part
time contractual instructors/teachers in the Upper Primary
Schools of the State.
2
In short ‘NCTE’
3
9. On the basis of the aforesaid advertisement, a vigorous exercise
was undertaken for the selection of eligible qualified teachers
for appointment as part time contractual instructors/teachers
in the Upper Primary Schools. Following the above exercise, a
large number of teachers came to be appointed under contracts
for eleven months on a fixed honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per
month with the condition that these instructors/teachers so
appointed would not directly or indirectly take up any part time
or whole-time job anywhere else.
10. The instructors/teachers so appointed were continued even
after the expiry of contractual period of eleven months on
renewed basis, year after year, but their honorarium remained
fixed at Rs.7,000/- per month despite the fact that
recommendations were made by appropriate authorities for the
enhancement of the same. Though, the recommendations so
made were partly accepted and even some enhancement was
made, but subsequently only the earlier fixed honorarium of
Rs.7,000/- per month was continued and paid to them.
Aggrieved thereby, they invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High
4
Court challenging the decision of the Executive Committee of
the Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad .
11. The Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
decided the writ petitions and directed for the payment of
Rs.17,000/- per month to such instructors/teachers with
effect from March 2017. However, in Special Appeal to the
Division Bench preferred by the State, the High Court by the
common impugned judgment and order dated 02.12.2022
passed in several such Special Appeals, directed the State
Government to pay honorarium of Rs.17,000/- per month for
the year 2017-2018 only.
12. Thus, there are eleven appeals preferred against the same
common impugned judgment and order dated 02.12.2022
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The first
Civil Appeal arising from S.L.P.(C) No.9459/2023 is the leading
appeal and has been preferred by the Welfare Association of
instructors/teachers so appointed. The second set of six Civil
Appeals arising from S.L.P. (C) Nos.1744-49/2026 is preferred
by the State of U.P. against the very same order. Lastly, the
third set of four Civil Appeals arising from S.L.P. (C) Nos. 3331-
5
3334/2024 is by some of the part time instructors/teachers in
their individual capacity.
13. The instructors/teachers are aggrieved for the reason that the
High Court permitted payment of Rs.17,000/- per month as
honorarium to them only for the year 2017-2018 and not
thereafter. The State of U.P. is aggrieved for the reason that the
burden to pay the said honorarium has been saddled upon it,
though, it was also for the Central Government to have
contributed the necessary funds to bear that burden and also
because of the observations and the findings of the High Court
regarding the interpretation of Section 7 of the Act.
14. It is in these circumstances that all these appeals have come
up before this Court for consideration raising a common
question as to whether part time contractual
instructors/teachers appointed in Upper Primary School in the
State of U.P. are entitled to revision of their honorarium of
Rs.7,000/- per month which was fixed for a contract period of
eleven months in the year 2013 or would continue to receive the
same fixed honorarium for years together or for all times to come
without any increment.
6
15. Undisputedly, all the instructors/teachers possessed
minimum qualifications and fulfilled the eligibility conditions
for appointment as part time contractual instructors/teachers.
They were duly selected and were appointed in various Upper
Primary Schools of the State pursuant to the advertisement
dated 25.02.2013. They are all continuing to function as such
ever since their appointment in the year 2013/2014.
16. The service contract provided that they will be paid a fixed
honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month by the Zila Basic Shiksha
Adhikari and that the period of their employment would only
be eleven months subject to renewal but is silent about the
honorarium on renewal of term. It categorically provided that
all such instructors/teachers will not directly or indirectly
engage in any other whole-time or part time profession or
business or enter into the service of any other employer.
17. Some time in the year 2016-2017, the State Government
3
submitted a proposal to the Project Approval Board for
enhancement of the honorarium payable to these
instructors/teachers to Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the
3
In short ‘PAB’
7
PAB, instead of sanctioning Rs.15,000/- per month, only
sanctioned honorarium of Rs.8,470/- per month for the period
March 2016 to February 2017. In this way, the honorarium
payable to these instructors/teachers was revised to
Rs.8,470/- per month for the above period which stood
substituted for the honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month, which
was initially fixed. Accordingly, the contract stood impliedly
modified to the above effect.
18. In the year 2017-2018, the State Government submitted a
fresh proposal to the PAB for the enhancement of honorarium
to Rs.17,000/- per month which was approved on 27.03.2017
th
in the 254 Meeting of PAB. Based upon the aforesaid
approval, the Additional Chief Secretary (Basic Education),
Government of Uttar Pradesh, issued an order on 02.06.2017
stating that the Government of Uttar Pradesh had accepted the
proposal for payment of Rs.17,000/- per month to the part time
contractual instructors/teachers for the year 2017-2018.
However, despite the approval as aforesaid and the letter of the
Additional Chief Secretary (Basic Education), Government of
Uttar Pradesh, the necessary funds were not released rather
8
the Executive Committee of the Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad of
the State reviewed the PAB approval and revised the amount of
honorarium as Rs.9,800/- per month instead of Rs.17,000/-
per month as recommended and accepted. Accordingly, PAB
issued order dated 02.01.2018 fixing honorarium to these part
time contractual instructors/teachers at the rate of Rs.9,800/-
per month.
19. Despite recommendation and acceptance of the proposal to pay
honorarium of Rs.17,000/- per month to these part time
contractual instructors/teachers and thereafter fixation of the
honorarium at the rate of Rs.9,800/- per month by the PAB,
the said instructors/teachers were allowed and paid
honorarium only at the previously fixed rate of Rs.8,470/- per
month.
20. To add insult to injury, PAB approved and fixed honorarium of
Rs.7,000/- for the year 2019-2020 its order dated
vide
19.07.2019. Thus, lowering the honorarium revised and paid
at Rs.8,470/- from March 2016 to Rs.7,000/- per month again.
21. In this manner, all the instructors/teachers so appointed were
paid honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month from the year 2013
9
till 2015-2016; for the year 2016-2017 at the rate of Rs.8,470/-
per month; for the year 2017-2018 again at the rate of
Rs.8,470/- per month despite the fact that the Executive
Committee of the Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad had fixed it at
Rs.9,800/- per month, even though, the State/ Central
Government had accorded approval from PAB for payment of
Rs.17,000/- per month and from the year 2019-2020 they are
again paid fixed honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month as
initially fixed.
22. We have heard Shri P. S. Patwalia, senior counsel on behalf of
instructors/teachers and Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad,
senior counsel on behalf of the State of U.P. and others on the
merits of the appeals.
23. Shri P.S. Patwalia, senior counsel for instructors/teachers
argued that the honorarium fixed and paid to these teachers at
the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month, does not even meet the
minimum standard of wages admissible to the workers. The
payment of such meagre amount defeats the very purpose and
object of free education enshrined under the Act. It renders the
implementation of the said Act as illusory. Secondly, the year
10
wise honorarium paid to such instructors/teachers
demonstrate prolonged stagnation with no chance of promotion
and increase in salary, as such, is arbitrary and contrary to the
statutory mandates. Thirdly, once an approval has been
granted by the PAB to pay honorarium of Rs.17,000/- per
month for the year 2017-2018 and the same had been accepted
by the State/Central Government, as reflected by the
letter/order dated 02.06.2017 issued by the Additional Chief
Secretary (Basic Education), Government of Uttar Pradesh, the
same stands substituted in place of the fixed honorarium of
Rs.7,000/- per month and, as such, it is not open for the
respondent to resile from the same and to pay Rs.7,000/- per
month as honorarium for the year 2019-2020 onwards. Lastly,
it has been submitted that the State cannot discriminate
between the instructors/teachers appointed to implement the
above programme with the other instructors/teachers and that
the said instructors/teachers are entitled to periodical
enhancement of honorarium so as to avoid stagnation. It has
been argued that honorarium, once enhanced and paid, could
11
not have been reduced to Rs.7,000/- per month with effect
from the year 2019-2020 onwards.
24. On behalf of the State of U.P., Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar
Prasad submitted that in fact the writ petitions itself were not
maintainable before the High Court inasmuch as the
instructors/teachers have not exhausted the statutory
remedies available to them under the scheme as provided
under Section 24 of Act before approaching the High Court.
(3)
Moreover, the decision to fix honorarium to such
instructors/teachers is a policy decision under the scheme and
since it is a policy matter, the courts have no role to play and
interfere with the same. In this connection, he relied upon
certain precedents which we would refer to, if necessary, at
some later stage. Lastly, he argued that these
instructors/teachers are simply part time contractual workers
and once they have accepted the terms and conditions of the
contract, they are estopped from claiming any higher
honorarium. They cannot approbate and reprobate by
accepting the terms of the contract and then to challenge the
same. Apart from this, under the scheme, the financial burden
12
with regard to payment of honorarium to these
instructors/teachers has to be shared by the Central
Government and the State Government in the ratio of 60:40
respectively. Therefore, once the State has fulfilled its
obligation to contribute 40 per cent of the finances, it was upon
the Central Government to contribute the remaining 60 per
cent and if the Central Government fails to fulfil its obligation,
the court could not have directed the State to bear that burden.
Thus, the High Court has misconstrued various provisions of
Section 7 of the Act in passing the impugned judgment.
25. Shri S. R. Singh, senior counsel appearing for some of the
instructors/teachers in the Civil Appeals arising from S.L.P.
Nos.3331-3334/2024 had submitted that Section 8 of the Act
mandates the State Government to ensure good quality
elementary education (Class I-VIII) in accordance with the
standards and norms prescribed and, therefore, it is
incumbent upon the State to engage best of
instructors/teachers and that would only be possible if proper
honorarium is paid to them. Moreover, Rule 20(3) of the rules
framed under the Act provides that pay and allowances and
13
other benefits such as pension payable to these
instructors/teachers shall be at par with the
instructors/teachers having similar qualification, work and
experience. Therefore, the State cannot discriminate and pay
honorarium to them at a much lower rate than admissible to
similarly placed and qualified instructors/teachers. The
fixation of salary for the instructors/teachers is within the
domain of the State Government and once a decision was taken
in this regard by the PAB, it had the statutory force and was
no longer dependent upon the discretion of the Central
Government or on the availability of the funds, either in the
hands of the State Government or on account of non-release of
funds by the Central Government.
26. In the light of the above facts and submission advanced on
behalf of the parties, the central issue in the present appeals is
about the honorarium payable to the part time contractual
instructors/teachers of the Upper Primary Schools in the State
of Uttar Pradesh and whether the fixed honorarium payable to
them under the initial contract is revisable from time to time.
14
27. Before delving into the merit of the case, it is pertinent to
address the preliminary objection raised by the State of Uttar
Pradesh regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition. The
submission on behalf of the State of U.P. is that the writ
petitions were not maintainable as instructors/teachers have
not exhausted the remedies available under the Act/scheme.
In this regard, reliance has been placed upon Section 24(3) of
the Act which provides that grievances of the
instructors/teachers shall be redressed in such manner as
may be prescribed.
28. No doubt, the aforesaid provisions make arrangement for a
redressal of the grievance of the instructors/teachers but the
grievances referred therein are in context with the default in
performance of duties by them or in connection with the
disciplinary action, if any, taken against them. This is evident
from the reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act
which provides that a teacher committing default in
performance of duties shall be liable to the disciplinary action
and it is in that connection that Sub-section (3) provides for the
redressal of the grievance of the teacher. The provisions of
15
Section 24 are required to be read together and not in isolation.
Sub-section (3) of Section 24, as such, cannot be read divorced
Sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 24.
29. Moreover, as held in Rajasthan State Electricity Board v.
4
Union of India , the existence of an alternative remedy under
a statutory scheme does not operate as an absolute bar to the
exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. This is particularly so in cases where the writ
petition has already been entertained by the Court, pleadings
have been completed, and the matter has been adjudicated on
merits. In such circumstances, relegating the parties to an
alternative forum would defeat the ends of justice and render
the prior proceedings redundant.
30. The Supreme Court has consistently clarified that the rule of
exclusion of writ jurisdiction on account of availability of an
alternative remedy is one of prudence and self-restraint, not of
compulsion. This principle was authoritatively reiterated in
5
Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. wherein
it was held that the High Court, while exercising its writ
4
(2008) 5 SCC 632
5
(2003) 2 SCC 107
16
jurisdiction, must weigh the facts and circumstances of each
case, assess the pros and cons, and then decide whether
interference is warranted. Thus, where the facts so justify, the
Court retains full discretion to entertain and decide a writ
petition notwithstanding the availability of an alternative
remedy. Thus, the objection to the maintainability is
unsustainable and is overruled.
31. In order to appreciate the issue at hand it is important to first
examine the position/status accorded to the teachers in the
Indian society.
32. In the larger narrative of nation-building, the energy, idealism,
and strength of the youth are rightly recognised as the driving
force of progress. Yet, this raw potential requires direction, and
it is the teacher who shapes it into a constructive and
purposeful force. The true foundation of a strong nation does
not lie merely in the size of its young population, but in the
character and values of its citizens. It is here that the teacher
emerges as the most crucial catalyst.
33. It has been rightly observed that the real meaning of nation-
building lies in shaping character and refining personality.
17
While parents bear the primary responsibility of nurturing
values, teachers play an equally vital and decisive role. They
engage with young minds during their most formative years
and, in doing so, profoundly influence attitudes, conduct, and
ideals. When parents and teachers work together to instill
discipline, moral values, and social responsibility, the
foundations of a stable and principled nation are laid.
34. This role of the teacher is beautifully captured in the verse,
" , "
रवि रहेगा जिसके पीछे िही अरुण भेदेगा तम।
When the sun stands behind a youth, darkness cannot remain
before them. In this verse, the sun symbolises knowledge,
clarity, and truth, while darkness represents ignorance and
confusion. In this sense, the teacher stands in the place of the
sun. With a teacher’s guidance, a student is never truly lost.
The teacher’s wisdom and values remain as a constant source
of strength and direction, enabling the student to overcome
ignorance and move towards understanding, just as dawn
dispels the darkness of night.
35. Therefore, if we seek a better future for the nation, we must
recognise, value and support teachers who are quietly shaping
18
the country’s destiny by moulding character, instilling values,
and guiding the youth.
36. Culturally, India has always recognized teachers equivalent to
God. This Indian concept is universally known and is reflected
in the following couplet:
“ ,
गुरु ब्रह्मा गुरु विष्णु गुरु देिो महेश्िरा।
, : ”
साक्षात परब्रह्म तस्मै श्री नम ॥
गुरु गुरुिे
This couplet elevates teacher to divine level by recognizing
teacher’s crucial role in shaping its pupils’ character and life.
It recognizes teacher’s contribution in imparting knowledge
and preserving correct values through relentless and
continuous guidance. Thus, a teacher is a divine channel and
not merely an instructor who acts as a guiding force in
nurturing insight and enlightening thoughts. He is a divine
trinity.
37. In India, while teachers have been given stature equivalent to
the God, there have been instances where they are placed
above God. This is reflected from the following couplet:
“गुरु गोब िंद दोऊ खडे, का के लागौं पािंय।
ललहारी गुरु आपने, जिन गोब िंद ददयो ताय॥”
19
This verse highlights the supreme importance of teacher. It
presents a situation where when teacher and God appears in
front of you, it is always better to bow down to the teacher first
then God as he is a person who awakens our life and introduces
us to God. It conveys that while God represents truth, it is
teachers who help us reach the truth, the God. Therefore, in all
humility, the Indian culture, society and ethos place teachers,
if not higher to the God but, at least equivalent to them.
Teachers command the highest respect in society and are
revered/worshipful as Gods.
38. It is in the above scenario that we have to consider the manner
in which our primary teachers have to be treated, who are
responsible for the character building of the generation next
i.e. Bharat Bhagya Vidhata . They are the ones who build the
character of new generation. Character building of the citizens
is the foundation for the nation building. If this foundation is
weak, the nation is bound to collapse. Therefore, we must
accord the highest regard and respect to our teachers at all
levels, even at the level of the government, especially the
primary teachers. They have to be compensated for their work
20
most suitably. In fact, no honorarium would be enough to
compensate the services rendered by our teachers.
39. The part time contractual instructors/teachers appointed in
Primary Schools of the State of Uttar Pradesh, in the first place,
ceases to be contractual teachers as soon as the contract
period of eleven months initially entered into or the renewed
period, if any, comes to an end. It is noticed from the counter
affidavit that the original contracts were last renewed in 2017-
18 and in these renewed contracts the honorarium agreed
upon is Rs.8,470/- per month. There is no renewed contract
thereafter. The contract having once expired and not having
been renewed specifically and reduced to writing after 2017-18
would not actually be a contract so as to recognize the
instructors/ teachers so appointed to be contract teachers on
the expiry of the above contract. They would rather be treated
as teachers simpliciter after 2017-18.
40. There is another reason to treat them as teachers at par with
other teachers. The part time contractual instructors/teachers
appointed in Upper Primary Schools possesses the basic
educational qualifications and eligibility as set out by the
21
National Council for Teachers Education which are at par with
the norms laid down for appointment of regular teachers. In
this view of the matter, the part time contractual
instructors/teachers appointed by the State Government
under the Scheme are in no way inferior to the regular teachers
or the Assistant Teachers appointed otherwise under the
scheme.
41. Secondly, part time contractual instructors/teachers of the
Upper Primary School are not even part time teachers, though
they are described so. It is for the simple reason that their
appointment itself vide Clause 5 of their service contract
stipulates that they are being appointed with the condition that
they would not directly or indirectly take up any part time
appointment or whole-time job anywhere else. 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. Part time teachers are
those who teaches part time during the day and do other work
in the remaining time. However, nothing has been placed on
record to show that they actually work part time and do not
22
discharge duties equivalent to those that are discharged by
regular teachers. They are instructors/teachers who actually
work full time like any other teacher and cannot even take up
any other work during their spare time. Thus, in fact, they are
whole time teachers.
42. In other words, the nomenclature used to describe the
instructors/teachers as part time contractual teachers is
completely deceptive. They neither remain contractual teachers
after the expiry of the contractual period nor they are part time
teachers especially when no material has been put forth to
show that they work only part time and do not possess
equivalent qualification as that of the regular teachers or that
they do not discharge equal duties as are expected from the
regular teachers.
43. There is another important facet of the matter which needs to
be addressed by us. The appointment of these part time
contractual instructors/teachers, though for a limited period
of one year, has undisputedly continued for over ten years in a
row. The scheme adopted by the State Government envisages
for appointment of one such instructor/teacher for every
23
hundred students; meaning thereby, that for every hundred
students in a school, one instructor/teacher is mandatory.
Thus, it flows from abovementioned facts that though posts for
such teachers have not been specifically created but by virtue
of their continuous engagement and subsistence of the
scheme, they have acquired certain degree of permanency and
the posts stand created or deemed to be created per se
automatically. Notably, these part-time contractual
instructors/teachers were discharging duties similar to regular
teachers including teaching up to eight periods in a day,
thereby performing the same workload and responsibilities as
regular teachers. In view of constitutional mandate of providing
free education up to primary levels, the State Government
cannot abandon the scheme and render the Upper Primary
Education meaningless, as it would be in conflict with the Act.
Accordingly, the nature of work assigned to these
instructors/teachers is apparently of a permanent nature. The
conclusion is, therefore, inevitable that the appointments of
these instructors/teachers are more or less of a permanent
24
nature and against a post which is deemed to have been
created substantively.
44. The appointment of these instructors/teachers, even if held to
be contractual, part time or even temporary in nature, there is
hardly any scope to replace these instructors/teachers by a
fresh contractual, part time or temporary instructor/teacher
inasmuch as these are the persons who are not only qualified
but have acquired some experience of working and are
definitely more suitable than the freshers. It goes without
saying that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another
ad hoc employee, a temporary employee cannot be replaced by
another temporary employee, a contractual employee cannot
be replaced by another contractual employee and the guest
employee by another guest employee. The incumbents working
as aforesaid are entitled to preference in comparison to the new
candidates, unless of course there is anything against them. In
fact, practice of engaging employees on ad hoc , temporary, part
time, contractual or as guest ought to be avoided and the
Government should strictly adhere to proper procedure for
regular recruitment.
25
45. In the instant case, all appointments of the
instructors/teachers were made by following the procedure
prescribed under the scheme pursuant to a proper
advertisement. In a sense, they were all substantively
appointed, maybe there was no sanctioned post but the
sanction of the post is deemed to be there as the nature of the
work assigned to these instructors/teachers is of a permanent
nature which in all probabilities is of a continuing nature and
is not likely to be abandoned or curtailed in any manner. The
term “substantive appointment” is not so defined but in service
jurisprudence is considered to mean an appointment, not being
an ad hoc appointment, on a post made after selection in
accordance with the rules and in the absence of the rules in
accordance with the procedure prescribed for under any
scheme or the instructions of the Government. Therefore, once
these instructors/teachers have undergone the process of
selection under the scheme regardless of the fact that there
existed a post, their appointments have to be treated as
substantive in character.
26
46. In the facts and circumstances, the business of calling such
instructors/teachers as ad hoc appointees or temporary
appointees or part time or contractual appointees is altogether
a misnomer and is not at all appropriate.
6
47. In Jaggo v. Union of India and Ors. this Court observed
that it is a hard reality that temporary employees, particularly
in Government institutions often face multifaceted forms of
exploitation which include misuse of “temporary labels”, “lack
of career progression” and “denial of basic rights and benefits”.
It further observed that employees engaged for work which is
essentially recurring and integral to the functioning of an
institution are often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual”
employees even though their roles mirror those of regular
employees. Such deceptive description of the employees
deprives them of their dignity, security and benefits that other
regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical
duties. These employees often find themselves excluded from
opportunities for skill development, promotions or incremental
pay raises, and they remain stagnant in their roles. They are
6
2024 SCC Online SC 3826
27
deprived of fundamental benefits such a pension, provident
fund, health insurance and paid leave even though they work
for decades resulting in social insecurity.
48. The question that arises now is as to what should be the
appropriate honorarium payable to such instructors/teachers.
No doubt, they were appointed on a fixed honorarium of Rs.
7,000/- per month way back in the year 2013-14 but that fixed
honorarium was only for a period of 11 months or for the
renewed period thereafter but was not applicable for their
extended term on the expiry of contracted period. In the wake
of the subsequent renewed contract for the period 2016-17
fixing honorarium @ Rs.8,470/- per month, the question is
what would be the honorarium payable to them after 2017-18
as there is no material on record to establish that any fresh
contract was executed for the subsequent years.
49. At this juncture it would be necessary to advert to yet another
submission that has been put forth by the State. It is
contended that the fixation of honorarium of these
instructors/teachers is a policy decision wherein Court has no
role to play. This cannot be accepted in the facts and
28
circumstances of the case. The fixation of honorarium to the
instructors/teachers may be a policy decision but it cannot be
exercised in an arbitrary manner so as to subject the
instructors/teachers to ‘ Begar’ . The honorarium has to be fixed
in consonance with the duties assigned to these
instructors/teachers depending upon their stature. Therefore,
any policy decision of the Government permanently fixing the
honorarium of the instructors/teachers for all times to come,
cannot be justified and approved of as periodical revision
depending upon the price rise, cost of living and other host of
factors. It is always permissible to revise the honorarium once
fixed, not only in the case of instructors/teachers but also in
the employment of workers/labourers.
50. It is admitted on record that the State Government in the year
2016-17 had submitted a proposal to pay Rs. 15,000/- per
month as honorarium to them; meaning thereby, that the State
Government acknowledges that the honorarium initially fixed
for these instructors/teachers is insufficient and has to be
increased. This realization probably may be for the reason that
in the year 2016-17 not even the labourers/unskilled workers
29
were being paid such low honorarium. The minimum wages Act
provided for a minimum wage of Rs.7,214/- per month in
2016-17 to the daily unskilled workers. Therefore, the
Government might have thought that such
instructors/teachers cannot be paid honorarium at a lower
rate than the workers. Despite the above recommendations, the
PAB approved and sanctioned honorarium to them at the rate
of Rs. 8,470/- per month and that too for the year 2016-17
only.
51. In the subsequent year, a fresh proposal was submitted by the
State Government to the PAB to pay Rs. 17,000/- per month
as honorarium to these instructors/teachers. It was also
approved by the PAB. Even the Additional Chief Secretary
(Basic Education), Government of Uttar Pradesh acknowledged
vide Letter dated 02.06.2017 that the Government has
accepted the proposal for payment of Rs. 17,000/- per month
as honorarium to these instructors/teachers. However, despite
such an acceptance, the Executive Committee of the Shiksha
Pariyojna Parishad fixed the honorarium for these
instructors/teachers at the rate of Rs. 9,800/- per month for
30
the year 2017-18 only. However, they were not even paid the
honorarium of Rs. 9,800/- per month fixed and determined,
what to say about the proposed and accepted honorarium of
Rs. 17,000/- per month.
52. It is admitted on record that the honorarium payable to these
instructors/teachers which was fixed at Rs. 7,000/- per month
in the year 2013-14 was enhanced to Rs. 8,470/- per month in
the year 2016-17 and then to Rs. 9,800/- per month in the year
2017-18 but even then, they were never paid Rs.9,800/- per
month. This may be probably due to the renewed contract for
the year 2017-18 wherein these instructors/teachers agreed
for Rs.8,470/- per month but this renewed contract also ended
and there was no fresh contract. Thus, the honorarium fixed in
the initial contract stood revised and substituted by Rs.8,470/-
per month rather by Rs. 9,800/- per month in the next year
and could not have been reduced thereafter in the absence of
any contract to the contrary. It must be borne in mind that
there was no stipulation under the contract that the
honorarium once fixed, cannot be revised or refixed or
enhanced or once revised could be reduced. In this situation,
31
the State Government was not justified in reducing the
honorarium payable to these instructors/teachers from the
year 2019-20 onwards again to Rs. 7,000/- per month after it
was enhanced to Rs.8,470/- for the year 2016-17 and to Rs.
9,800/- per month in the year 2017-18. The State Government
cannot take away the benefit which is once extended to these
instructors/teachers in a unilateral way without following the
principles of natural justice.
53. The above facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the
State Government was conscious of the fact that the
honorarium of these instructors/teachers initially fixed under
the contract is open to change and is revisable, if not on year-
to-year basis but periodically. The honorarium cannot remain
stagnant for all times to come.
54. Article 23 of the Constitution provides with a general
prohibition against “traffic in human beings, beggar and other
similar forms of forced labour”. In the landmark case of
7
People’s Union For Democratic Rights v. Union of India ,
the Supreme Court has adopted an expansive interpretation of
7
(1982) 3 SCC 235
32
Article 23 of the Constitution. The court explained the meaning
of “Forced labour” to encompass any work or service rendered
unwillingly as a result of force or compulsion. It held that
“force” under Article 23 of the Constitution not only includes
physical or legal force but also economic compulsion due to
which the individual is left with no other alternative but to
accept renumeration less than the minimum wages. It was held
that when a person is rendering service or doing labour at a
meagre amount less than the minimum wages, then he is not
voluntarily working, he is being forced by his economic
hardship to accept the pay. The case also covers contractual
workers who may have formally agreed to such terms, as such
agreements are often the product of uneven bargaining power
and do not represent free and voluntary consent in a
substantive sense. Thus, this Article takes a hit at every form
of forced labour, whether it is a direct case of forced labour or
case of forced labour hidden under the guise of voluntary work
or contractual work. Any unfair practice fixing remuneration of
these instructors/teachers permanently as Rs. 7,000/- per
month or Rs. Rs. 8,470/- per month for all times is a kind of
33
forced labour amounting to ‘ Begar’ which is strictly prohibited
under Article 23 of the Constitution.
55. In the present case, the further unilateral reduction of the
already low renumeration has placed these part time
instructors/teachers in place of economic vulnerability. These
instructors’/teachers’ position is worsened by Clause 5 of their
employment contract, which explicitly prohibits them from
taking up any other employment, part-time or whole-time. This
clause, operating in tandem with the State’s unilateral wage
reduction, creates a coercive cage. The instructors/teachers
are left with no alternative, they cannot seek supplementary
income elsewhere due to the contractual bar, and they cannot
refuse the reduced wages due to economic necessity. This
complete deprivation of choice is the essence of the “force”
contemplated in the abovementioned case.
56. Consequently, the State’s actions has created a condition of
economic coercion that is inconsistent with the constitutional
safeguards against forced labour. The State’s action of
withdrawing a legitimately enhanced wage and then allowing
honorarium to remain artificially depressed would, in
34
substance, be inconsistent with the spirit of Article 23 of the
Constitution which prohibits all forms of forced labour. The
State, under the guise of contractual management or financial
constraint, cannot compel labours/teachers to such coercive
circumstances.
57. In view of the above discussion, one thing is very clear that the
honorarium fixed for these instructors/teachers under the
contract cannot remain stagnant and is revisable suitably on
periodical basis and that if once revised and increased cannot
be reduced for subsequent periods.
58. Now the issue is the manner and the basis on which the
honorarium payable to these instructors/teachers has to be
revised and fixed.
59. The Samagra Shiksha Scheme subsumed the earlier Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan came into being in the year 2018. It is a
centrally sponsored scheme which promotes primary education
at the State/Union Territory level. It provides for the fund
sharing pattern in the following manner inter se the Union and
the State or Union Territory:
(i) For eight North-Eastern States and three Himalayan
States, in the ratio of 90:10;
35
(ii) For all other States and Union Territories, in the ratio
of 60:40; and
(iii) For Union Territories without legislature, it is 100% by
the Union.
60. The aforesaid scheme aims for providing additional support to
the States and the Union Territories to improve the quality of
primary education.
61. The Scheme is implemented at the national level by Governing
Council headed by the Minister of Education and then there is
a Project Approval Board at the national level which is headed
by the Secretary, Department of School Education and
Literacy. It is the primary function of the PAB to approve the
annual work plan and budget of States and Union Territories.
It has full financial powers to approve plans and sanction the
budgets for the implementation of the scheme. No other
authority has any say in the financial matters and that
connected with the budget of the scheme. The aforesaid powers
and functions of the PAB and that it is a national level
administrative body is duly spelled out in Chapters 14.2.2 and
14.2.4 of the scheme.
36
62. At the State level, there is a Governing Council headed by the
Chief Minister/State Education Minister and then there is an
Executive Committee headed by the Chief
Secretary/Commissioner/Education Secretary of the
State/Union Territory. The Governing Council is vested with
the power to frame necessary policies and to facilitate Center-
State Coordination, whereas, the administrative powers vests
with the Executive Committee. However, none of the above two
bodies are vested with any financial powers or the power to
sanction budget. Therefore, the power to sanction budget
remains in the exclusive domain of PAB. It means that under
the scheme, it is only the PAB who has the authority to
sanction budget and inter alia to even fix honorarium of the
instructors/teachers.
63. The Act is completely silent with regard to the financial matters
and the fixation of honorarium admissible to the
instructors/teachers appointed under the scheme. However,
Section 24 of the Act provides for the duties of the teachers
appointed under the scheme and Section 27 inter alia lays
down that no teacher shall be deployed for any non-educational
37
purpose other than the work in connection with the decennial
population census, disaster relief duties or duties relating to
elections to the local authority or the State Legislature or the
Parliament, as the case may be. In other words, teachers under
the scheme can be deployed in certain non-educational work
also.
64. It is only Rule 20 of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 framed under the Act
which provides for the salary, allowances and conditions of the
service of teachers appointed under the scheme. It inter alia
vide sub-rule 20 (3) provides that the scales of pay and
allowance, medical facilities, pension/gratuity/provident fund
and other prescribed benefits of teachers shall be at par for
similar qualification, work and experience of other teachers. It
necessarily means that the instructors/teachers appointed
under the scheme for the benefit of the primary education
under the Act have been placed at par with other
instructors/teachers and that apart from pay, they are entitled
to allowances, medical facilities, pension/gratuity/provident
fund and similar benefits.
38
65. In view of the foregoing provisions and the scheme, it is evident
that the instructors/teachers appointed under the scheme
have to be at par with other instructors/teachers and they have
to perform not only the academic duties but certain other non-
educational duties as well. They are entitled to honorarium at
par with the other instructors/teachers. However, under the
facts and circumstances of the case, the instructors/teachers
appointed under the scheme described as part time contractual
instructors/teachers, are being paid fixed honorarium of
Rs.7,000/- per month only, which is even lesser than the
minimum wages admissible to the workers/labourers.
Accordingly, as mentioned earlier, the honorarium payable to
these instructors/teachers needs to be revised periodically.
This periodic revision has to be done by none other than PAB
and its decision is to be treated as final and binding as no other
authority or body under the Act or the scheme has any power
to sit over its decision and to take a contrary view. In the case
at hand, the honorarium initially fixed at Rs.7,000/- per month
was revised to Rs.8,470/- and thereafter, the PAB had opined
and fixed it at Rs.9,800/- per month for the year 2017-18. Once
39
such a decision had been taken, it was no one’s business to
intervene and to reduce the honorarium and pay either
Rs.8,470/- or Rs.7,000/- per month to these
instructors/teachers.
66. It may also be noted that PAB had determined the honorarium
of Rs.17,000/- per month for the year 2017-18 but this was
not implemented. Therefore, in all earnest, the
instructors/teachers appointed under the scheme became
entitled for payment of honorarium at the rate of Rs.17,000/-
per month for the year 2017-18 and thereafter, till it is suitably
revised by the PAB. There is nothing on record to demonstrate
that any revision of honorarium has taken place after 2017-18
by the PAB but even then that the honorarium was lowered to
the initial one that is Rs.7,000/- per month. Therefore, the
payment of honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month to the
instructors/teachers appointed under the scheme from the
year 2018-19 onwards is completely illegal, arbitrary and
unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
67. In the light of the above discussion, it is most appropriate for
us to direct for the payment of honorarium at the rate of
40
Rs.17,000/- per month to all instructors/teachers appointed
under the scheme from the year 2017-18 onwards till the same
is revised by the appropriate authority i.e., PAB and further
that the PAB shall periodically revise the honorarium fixed for
these instructors/teachers, if not annually but once in three
years.
68. 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
above Sub-section (5) of Section 7 of the Act reads as under :-
“ (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (4), the State Government shall,
taking into consideration the sums provided by
the Central Government to a State Government
under sub-section (3), and its other resources,
be responsible to provide funds for
implementation of the provisions of the Act.”
41
69. 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.
70. On the basis of the above discussion, we conclude as under :-
i) The appointment of the part time or contractual
instructors/teachers in fact no longer remains contractual in
42
nature once the contract period of eleven months for which
they were initially appointed or the extended contract period
stood expired;
ii) 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;
iii) 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;
iv) 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;
v) The PAB having once approved the proposal for fixing
Rs.17,000/- per month as honorarium to these
43
instructors/teachers, no authority can sit over such a decision
and pass orders contrary to it;
vi) 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”;
vii) 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;
viii) 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 ‘ and unfair practice which is violative of
Begar’
Article 23 of the Constitution;
ix) 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
44
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.
71. In view of the above discussion, the question formulated in
paragraph 14 above is answered 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. 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.
72. Thus, all these instructors/teachers are entitled to receive
honorarium at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month with effect
from 2017-18. The State Government shall start paying
honorarium to them at the rate of Rs. 17,000/- per month
45
w.e.f. 01.04.2026 and the arrears of which shall be paid to
them by the State Government within a period of six months
from today. The State Government may recover the
contribution of the Central Government from the Union of
India.
73. Accordingly, the Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P (C) No.9459
of 2023 and S.L.P. (C) Nos.3331-3334 of 2024 filed by the
Welfare Association and teachers respectively are allowed
whereas the Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1744-
1749 of 2026 filed by the State of U.P. & Ors. are dismissed in
the above terms.
……………………………………...J.
[PANKAJ MITHAL]
…………………………………...J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 04, 2026
46
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.9459 of 2023)
U.P. JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL COUNCIL
INSTRUCTOR WELFARE ASSOCIATION …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1744-1749 of 2026)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. .… APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ANURAG AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 3331-3334 of 2024)
ANURAG AND ANR. .… APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Leave granted.
1
2. Education, that too good education at least up to the primary
level based upon values and morals, is fundamental to the
progress of the nation.
3. Accepting the above fundamental principle, the Constitution
(Eighty-Sixth Amendment Act), 2002 vide Section 2, inserted
Article 21A in the Constitution of India with effect from
01.04.2010 recognizing Right to Education to all children
between the age of 6-14 years.
4. Article 21A reads as under :-
“ 21A. Right to education. – The State shall
provide free and compulsory education to all
children of the age of six to fourteen years in
such manner as the State may, by law,
determine ”
5. In furtherance of the above objective, the Right of Children to
1
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was enacted on
26.08.2009 to provide free and compulsory education to all
children of the age of 6-14 years.
6. The State of U.P., to promote primary education, adopted the
centrally sponsored scheme of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan (now
merged into Samagra Shiksha Scheme , launched in 2018) and
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act”
2
decided to appoint part time instructors/teachers on
contractual basis in Upper Primary Schools (Class VI-VIII)
throughout the State of U.P.
7. In order to implement the above programme, the State of U.P.
issued a Government Order dated 31.01.2013, contemplating
to appoint part time instructors/teachers on contractual basis
on a fixed honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month to impart
physical education, education in art and work education. The
said Government Order stipulated for appointment of one
instructor/teacher for every one hundred students and
prescribed the eligibility conditions and the minimum
qualifications for the appointment of such instructors/teachers
in accordance with the norms set out by the National Council
2
for Teacher Education .
8. Under the above programme, an advertisement dated
25.02.2013 was issued by the State of U.P. inviting
applications from eligible candidates for appointment as part
time contractual instructors/teachers in the Upper Primary
Schools of the State.
2
In short ‘NCTE’
3
9. On the basis of the aforesaid advertisement, a vigorous exercise
was undertaken for the selection of eligible qualified teachers
for appointment as part time contractual instructors/teachers
in the Upper Primary Schools. Following the above exercise, a
large number of teachers came to be appointed under contracts
for eleven months on a fixed honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per
month with the condition that these instructors/teachers so
appointed would not directly or indirectly take up any part time
or whole-time job anywhere else.
10. The instructors/teachers so appointed were continued even
after the expiry of contractual period of eleven months on
renewed basis, year after year, but their honorarium remained
fixed at Rs.7,000/- per month despite the fact that
recommendations were made by appropriate authorities for the
enhancement of the same. Though, the recommendations so
made were partly accepted and even some enhancement was
made, but subsequently only the earlier fixed honorarium of
Rs.7,000/- per month was continued and paid to them.
Aggrieved thereby, they invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High
4
Court challenging the decision of the Executive Committee of
the Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad .
11. The Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
decided the writ petitions and directed for the payment of
Rs.17,000/- per month to such instructors/teachers with
effect from March 2017. However, in Special Appeal to the
Division Bench preferred by the State, the High Court by the
common impugned judgment and order dated 02.12.2022
passed in several such Special Appeals, directed the State
Government to pay honorarium of Rs.17,000/- per month for
the year 2017-2018 only.
12. Thus, there are eleven appeals preferred against the same
common impugned judgment and order dated 02.12.2022
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The first
Civil Appeal arising from S.L.P.(C) No.9459/2023 is the leading
appeal and has been preferred by the Welfare Association of
instructors/teachers so appointed. The second set of six Civil
Appeals arising from S.L.P. (C) Nos.1744-49/2026 is preferred
by the State of U.P. against the very same order. Lastly, the
third set of four Civil Appeals arising from S.L.P. (C) Nos. 3331-
5
3334/2024 is by some of the part time instructors/teachers in
their individual capacity.
13. The instructors/teachers are aggrieved for the reason that the
High Court permitted payment of Rs.17,000/- per month as
honorarium to them only for the year 2017-2018 and not
thereafter. The State of U.P. is aggrieved for the reason that the
burden to pay the said honorarium has been saddled upon it,
though, it was also for the Central Government to have
contributed the necessary funds to bear that burden and also
because of the observations and the findings of the High Court
regarding the interpretation of Section 7 of the Act.
14. It is in these circumstances that all these appeals have come
up before this Court for consideration raising a common
question as to whether part time contractual
instructors/teachers appointed in Upper Primary School in the
State of U.P. are entitled to revision of their honorarium of
Rs.7,000/- per month which was fixed for a contract period of
eleven months in the year 2013 or would continue to receive the
same fixed honorarium for years together or for all times to come
without any increment.
6
15. Undisputedly, all the instructors/teachers possessed
minimum qualifications and fulfilled the eligibility conditions
for appointment as part time contractual instructors/teachers.
They were duly selected and were appointed in various Upper
Primary Schools of the State pursuant to the advertisement
dated 25.02.2013. They are all continuing to function as such
ever since their appointment in the year 2013/2014.
16. The service contract provided that they will be paid a fixed
honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month by the Zila Basic Shiksha
Adhikari and that the period of their employment would only
be eleven months subject to renewal but is silent about the
honorarium on renewal of term. It categorically provided that
all such instructors/teachers will not directly or indirectly
engage in any other whole-time or part time profession or
business or enter into the service of any other employer.
17. Some time in the year 2016-2017, the State Government
3
submitted a proposal to the Project Approval Board for
enhancement of the honorarium payable to these
instructors/teachers to Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the
3
In short ‘PAB’
7
PAB, instead of sanctioning Rs.15,000/- per month, only
sanctioned honorarium of Rs.8,470/- per month for the period
March 2016 to February 2017. In this way, the honorarium
payable to these instructors/teachers was revised to
Rs.8,470/- per month for the above period which stood
substituted for the honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month, which
was initially fixed. Accordingly, the contract stood impliedly
modified to the above effect.
18. In the year 2017-2018, the State Government submitted a
fresh proposal to the PAB for the enhancement of honorarium
to Rs.17,000/- per month which was approved on 27.03.2017
th
in the 254 Meeting of PAB. Based upon the aforesaid
approval, the Additional Chief Secretary (Basic Education),
Government of Uttar Pradesh, issued an order on 02.06.2017
stating that the Government of Uttar Pradesh had accepted the
proposal for payment of Rs.17,000/- per month to the part time
contractual instructors/teachers for the year 2017-2018.
However, despite the approval as aforesaid and the letter of the
Additional Chief Secretary (Basic Education), Government of
Uttar Pradesh, the necessary funds were not released rather
8
the Executive Committee of the Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad of
the State reviewed the PAB approval and revised the amount of
honorarium as Rs.9,800/- per month instead of Rs.17,000/-
per month as recommended and accepted. Accordingly, PAB
issued order dated 02.01.2018 fixing honorarium to these part
time contractual instructors/teachers at the rate of Rs.9,800/-
per month.
19. Despite recommendation and acceptance of the proposal to pay
honorarium of Rs.17,000/- per month to these part time
contractual instructors/teachers and thereafter fixation of the
honorarium at the rate of Rs.9,800/- per month by the PAB,
the said instructors/teachers were allowed and paid
honorarium only at the previously fixed rate of Rs.8,470/- per
month.
20. To add insult to injury, PAB approved and fixed honorarium of
Rs.7,000/- for the year 2019-2020 its order dated
vide
19.07.2019. Thus, lowering the honorarium revised and paid
at Rs.8,470/- from March 2016 to Rs.7,000/- per month again.
21. In this manner, all the instructors/teachers so appointed were
paid honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month from the year 2013
9
till 2015-2016; for the year 2016-2017 at the rate of Rs.8,470/-
per month; for the year 2017-2018 again at the rate of
Rs.8,470/- per month despite the fact that the Executive
Committee of the Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad had fixed it at
Rs.9,800/- per month, even though, the State/ Central
Government had accorded approval from PAB for payment of
Rs.17,000/- per month and from the year 2019-2020 they are
again paid fixed honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month as
initially fixed.
22. We have heard Shri P. S. Patwalia, senior counsel on behalf of
instructors/teachers and Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad,
senior counsel on behalf of the State of U.P. and others on the
merits of the appeals.
23. Shri P.S. Patwalia, senior counsel for instructors/teachers
argued that the honorarium fixed and paid to these teachers at
the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month, does not even meet the
minimum standard of wages admissible to the workers. The
payment of such meagre amount defeats the very purpose and
object of free education enshrined under the Act. It renders the
implementation of the said Act as illusory. Secondly, the year
10
wise honorarium paid to such instructors/teachers
demonstrate prolonged stagnation with no chance of promotion
and increase in salary, as such, is arbitrary and contrary to the
statutory mandates. Thirdly, once an approval has been
granted by the PAB to pay honorarium of Rs.17,000/- per
month for the year 2017-2018 and the same had been accepted
by the State/Central Government, as reflected by the
letter/order dated 02.06.2017 issued by the Additional Chief
Secretary (Basic Education), Government of Uttar Pradesh, the
same stands substituted in place of the fixed honorarium of
Rs.7,000/- per month and, as such, it is not open for the
respondent to resile from the same and to pay Rs.7,000/- per
month as honorarium for the year 2019-2020 onwards. Lastly,
it has been submitted that the State cannot discriminate
between the instructors/teachers appointed to implement the
above programme with the other instructors/teachers and that
the said instructors/teachers are entitled to periodical
enhancement of honorarium so as to avoid stagnation. It has
been argued that honorarium, once enhanced and paid, could
11
not have been reduced to Rs.7,000/- per month with effect
from the year 2019-2020 onwards.
24. On behalf of the State of U.P., Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar
Prasad submitted that in fact the writ petitions itself were not
maintainable before the High Court inasmuch as the
instructors/teachers have not exhausted the statutory
remedies available to them under the scheme as provided
under Section 24 of Act before approaching the High Court.
(3)
Moreover, the decision to fix honorarium to such
instructors/teachers is a policy decision under the scheme and
since it is a policy matter, the courts have no role to play and
interfere with the same. In this connection, he relied upon
certain precedents which we would refer to, if necessary, at
some later stage. Lastly, he argued that these
instructors/teachers are simply part time contractual workers
and once they have accepted the terms and conditions of the
contract, they are estopped from claiming any higher
honorarium. They cannot approbate and reprobate by
accepting the terms of the contract and then to challenge the
same. Apart from this, under the scheme, the financial burden
12
with regard to payment of honorarium to these
instructors/teachers has to be shared by the Central
Government and the State Government in the ratio of 60:40
respectively. Therefore, once the State has fulfilled its
obligation to contribute 40 per cent of the finances, it was upon
the Central Government to contribute the remaining 60 per
cent and if the Central Government fails to fulfil its obligation,
the court could not have directed the State to bear that burden.
Thus, the High Court has misconstrued various provisions of
Section 7 of the Act in passing the impugned judgment.
25. Shri S. R. Singh, senior counsel appearing for some of the
instructors/teachers in the Civil Appeals arising from S.L.P.
Nos.3331-3334/2024 had submitted that Section 8 of the Act
mandates the State Government to ensure good quality
elementary education (Class I-VIII) in accordance with the
standards and norms prescribed and, therefore, it is
incumbent upon the State to engage best of
instructors/teachers and that would only be possible if proper
honorarium is paid to them. Moreover, Rule 20(3) of the rules
framed under the Act provides that pay and allowances and
13
other benefits such as pension payable to these
instructors/teachers shall be at par with the
instructors/teachers having similar qualification, work and
experience. Therefore, the State cannot discriminate and pay
honorarium to them at a much lower rate than admissible to
similarly placed and qualified instructors/teachers. The
fixation of salary for the instructors/teachers is within the
domain of the State Government and once a decision was taken
in this regard by the PAB, it had the statutory force and was
no longer dependent upon the discretion of the Central
Government or on the availability of the funds, either in the
hands of the State Government or on account of non-release of
funds by the Central Government.
26. In the light of the above facts and submission advanced on
behalf of the parties, the central issue in the present appeals is
about the honorarium payable to the part time contractual
instructors/teachers of the Upper Primary Schools in the State
of Uttar Pradesh and whether the fixed honorarium payable to
them under the initial contract is revisable from time to time.
14
27. Before delving into the merit of the case, it is pertinent to
address the preliminary objection raised by the State of Uttar
Pradesh regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition. The
submission on behalf of the State of U.P. is that the writ
petitions were not maintainable as instructors/teachers have
not exhausted the remedies available under the Act/scheme.
In this regard, reliance has been placed upon Section 24(3) of
the Act which provides that grievances of the
instructors/teachers shall be redressed in such manner as
may be prescribed.
28. No doubt, the aforesaid provisions make arrangement for a
redressal of the grievance of the instructors/teachers but the
grievances referred therein are in context with the default in
performance of duties by them or in connection with the
disciplinary action, if any, taken against them. This is evident
from the reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act
which provides that a teacher committing default in
performance of duties shall be liable to the disciplinary action
and it is in that connection that Sub-section (3) provides for the
redressal of the grievance of the teacher. The provisions of
15
Section 24 are required to be read together and not in isolation.
Sub-section (3) of Section 24, as such, cannot be read divorced
Sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 24.
29. Moreover, as held in Rajasthan State Electricity Board v.
4
Union of India , the existence of an alternative remedy under
a statutory scheme does not operate as an absolute bar to the
exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. This is particularly so in cases where the writ
petition has already been entertained by the Court, pleadings
have been completed, and the matter has been adjudicated on
merits. In such circumstances, relegating the parties to an
alternative forum would defeat the ends of justice and render
the prior proceedings redundant.
30. The Supreme Court has consistently clarified that the rule of
exclusion of writ jurisdiction on account of availability of an
alternative remedy is one of prudence and self-restraint, not of
compulsion. This principle was authoritatively reiterated in
5
Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. wherein
it was held that the High Court, while exercising its writ
4
(2008) 5 SCC 632
5
(2003) 2 SCC 107
16
jurisdiction, must weigh the facts and circumstances of each
case, assess the pros and cons, and then decide whether
interference is warranted. Thus, where the facts so justify, the
Court retains full discretion to entertain and decide a writ
petition notwithstanding the availability of an alternative
remedy. Thus, the objection to the maintainability is
unsustainable and is overruled.
31. In order to appreciate the issue at hand it is important to first
examine the position/status accorded to the teachers in the
Indian society.
32. In the larger narrative of nation-building, the energy, idealism,
and strength of the youth are rightly recognised as the driving
force of progress. Yet, this raw potential requires direction, and
it is the teacher who shapes it into a constructive and
purposeful force. The true foundation of a strong nation does
not lie merely in the size of its young population, but in the
character and values of its citizens. It is here that the teacher
emerges as the most crucial catalyst.
33. It has been rightly observed that the real meaning of nation-
building lies in shaping character and refining personality.
17
While parents bear the primary responsibility of nurturing
values, teachers play an equally vital and decisive role. They
engage with young minds during their most formative years
and, in doing so, profoundly influence attitudes, conduct, and
ideals. When parents and teachers work together to instill
discipline, moral values, and social responsibility, the
foundations of a stable and principled nation are laid.
34. This role of the teacher is beautifully captured in the verse,
" , "
रवि रहेगा जिसके पीछे िही अरुण भेदेगा तम।
When the sun stands behind a youth, darkness cannot remain
before them. In this verse, the sun symbolises knowledge,
clarity, and truth, while darkness represents ignorance and
confusion. In this sense, the teacher stands in the place of the
sun. With a teacher’s guidance, a student is never truly lost.
The teacher’s wisdom and values remain as a constant source
of strength and direction, enabling the student to overcome
ignorance and move towards understanding, just as dawn
dispels the darkness of night.
35. Therefore, if we seek a better future for the nation, we must
recognise, value and support teachers who are quietly shaping
18
the country’s destiny by moulding character, instilling values,
and guiding the youth.
36. Culturally, India has always recognized teachers equivalent to
God. This Indian concept is universally known and is reflected
in the following couplet:
“ ,
गुरु ब्रह्मा गुरु विष्णु गुरु देिो महेश्िरा।
, : ”
साक्षात परब्रह्म तस्मै श्री नम ॥
गुरु गुरुिे
This couplet elevates teacher to divine level by recognizing
teacher’s crucial role in shaping its pupils’ character and life.
It recognizes teacher’s contribution in imparting knowledge
and preserving correct values through relentless and
continuous guidance. Thus, a teacher is a divine channel and
not merely an instructor who acts as a guiding force in
nurturing insight and enlightening thoughts. He is a divine
trinity.
37. In India, while teachers have been given stature equivalent to
the God, there have been instances where they are placed
above God. This is reflected from the following couplet:
“गुरु गोब िंद दोऊ खडे, का के लागौं पािंय।
ललहारी गुरु आपने, जिन गोब िंद ददयो ताय॥”
19
This verse highlights the supreme importance of teacher. It
presents a situation where when teacher and God appears in
front of you, it is always better to bow down to the teacher first
then God as he is a person who awakens our life and introduces
us to God. It conveys that while God represents truth, it is
teachers who help us reach the truth, the God. Therefore, in all
humility, the Indian culture, society and ethos place teachers,
if not higher to the God but, at least equivalent to them.
Teachers command the highest respect in society and are
revered/worshipful as Gods.
38. It is in the above scenario that we have to consider the manner
in which our primary teachers have to be treated, who are
responsible for the character building of the generation next
i.e. Bharat Bhagya Vidhata . They are the ones who build the
character of new generation. Character building of the citizens
is the foundation for the nation building. If this foundation is
weak, the nation is bound to collapse. Therefore, we must
accord the highest regard and respect to our teachers at all
levels, even at the level of the government, especially the
primary teachers. They have to be compensated for their work
20
most suitably. In fact, no honorarium would be enough to
compensate the services rendered by our teachers.
39. The part time contractual instructors/teachers appointed in
Primary Schools of the State of Uttar Pradesh, in the first place,
ceases to be contractual teachers as soon as the contract
period of eleven months initially entered into or the renewed
period, if any, comes to an end. It is noticed from the counter
affidavit that the original contracts were last renewed in 2017-
18 and in these renewed contracts the honorarium agreed
upon is Rs.8,470/- per month. There is no renewed contract
thereafter. The contract having once expired and not having
been renewed specifically and reduced to writing after 2017-18
would not actually be a contract so as to recognize the
instructors/ teachers so appointed to be contract teachers on
the expiry of the above contract. They would rather be treated
as teachers simpliciter after 2017-18.
40. There is another reason to treat them as teachers at par with
other teachers. The part time contractual instructors/teachers
appointed in Upper Primary Schools possesses the basic
educational qualifications and eligibility as set out by the
21
National Council for Teachers Education which are at par with
the norms laid down for appointment of regular teachers. In
this view of the matter, the part time contractual
instructors/teachers appointed by the State Government
under the Scheme are in no way inferior to the regular teachers
or the Assistant Teachers appointed otherwise under the
scheme.
41. Secondly, part time contractual instructors/teachers of the
Upper Primary School are not even part time teachers, though
they are described so. It is for the simple reason that their
appointment itself vide Clause 5 of their service contract
stipulates that they are being appointed with the condition that
they would not directly or indirectly take up any part time
appointment or whole-time job anywhere else. 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. Part time teachers are
those who teaches part time during the day and do other work
in the remaining time. However, nothing has been placed on
record to show that they actually work part time and do not
22
discharge duties equivalent to those that are discharged by
regular teachers. They are instructors/teachers who actually
work full time like any other teacher and cannot even take up
any other work during their spare time. Thus, in fact, they are
whole time teachers.
42. In other words, the nomenclature used to describe the
instructors/teachers as part time contractual teachers is
completely deceptive. They neither remain contractual teachers
after the expiry of the contractual period nor they are part time
teachers especially when no material has been put forth to
show that they work only part time and do not possess
equivalent qualification as that of the regular teachers or that
they do not discharge equal duties as are expected from the
regular teachers.
43. There is another important facet of the matter which needs to
be addressed by us. The appointment of these part time
contractual instructors/teachers, though for a limited period
of one year, has undisputedly continued for over ten years in a
row. The scheme adopted by the State Government envisages
for appointment of one such instructor/teacher for every
23
hundred students; meaning thereby, that for every hundred
students in a school, one instructor/teacher is mandatory.
Thus, it flows from abovementioned facts that though posts for
such teachers have not been specifically created but by virtue
of their continuous engagement and subsistence of the
scheme, they have acquired certain degree of permanency and
the posts stand created or deemed to be created per se
automatically. Notably, these part-time contractual
instructors/teachers were discharging duties similar to regular
teachers including teaching up to eight periods in a day,
thereby performing the same workload and responsibilities as
regular teachers. In view of constitutional mandate of providing
free education up to primary levels, the State Government
cannot abandon the scheme and render the Upper Primary
Education meaningless, as it would be in conflict with the Act.
Accordingly, the nature of work assigned to these
instructors/teachers is apparently of a permanent nature. The
conclusion is, therefore, inevitable that the appointments of
these instructors/teachers are more or less of a permanent
24
nature and against a post which is deemed to have been
created substantively.
44. The appointment of these instructors/teachers, even if held to
be contractual, part time or even temporary in nature, there is
hardly any scope to replace these instructors/teachers by a
fresh contractual, part time or temporary instructor/teacher
inasmuch as these are the persons who are not only qualified
but have acquired some experience of working and are
definitely more suitable than the freshers. It goes without
saying that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another
ad hoc employee, a temporary employee cannot be replaced by
another temporary employee, a contractual employee cannot
be replaced by another contractual employee and the guest
employee by another guest employee. The incumbents working
as aforesaid are entitled to preference in comparison to the new
candidates, unless of course there is anything against them. In
fact, practice of engaging employees on ad hoc , temporary, part
time, contractual or as guest ought to be avoided and the
Government should strictly adhere to proper procedure for
regular recruitment.
25
45. In the instant case, all appointments of the
instructors/teachers were made by following the procedure
prescribed under the scheme pursuant to a proper
advertisement. In a sense, they were all substantively
appointed, maybe there was no sanctioned post but the
sanction of the post is deemed to be there as the nature of the
work assigned to these instructors/teachers is of a permanent
nature which in all probabilities is of a continuing nature and
is not likely to be abandoned or curtailed in any manner. The
term “substantive appointment” is not so defined but in service
jurisprudence is considered to mean an appointment, not being
an ad hoc appointment, on a post made after selection in
accordance with the rules and in the absence of the rules in
accordance with the procedure prescribed for under any
scheme or the instructions of the Government. Therefore, once
these instructors/teachers have undergone the process of
selection under the scheme regardless of the fact that there
existed a post, their appointments have to be treated as
substantive in character.
26
46. In the facts and circumstances, the business of calling such
instructors/teachers as ad hoc appointees or temporary
appointees or part time or contractual appointees is altogether
a misnomer and is not at all appropriate.
6
47. In Jaggo v. Union of India and Ors. this Court observed
that it is a hard reality that temporary employees, particularly
in Government institutions often face multifaceted forms of
exploitation which include misuse of “temporary labels”, “lack
of career progression” and “denial of basic rights and benefits”.
It further observed that employees engaged for work which is
essentially recurring and integral to the functioning of an
institution are often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual”
employees even though their roles mirror those of regular
employees. Such deceptive description of the employees
deprives them of their dignity, security and benefits that other
regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical
duties. These employees often find themselves excluded from
opportunities for skill development, promotions or incremental
pay raises, and they remain stagnant in their roles. They are
6
2024 SCC Online SC 3826
27
deprived of fundamental benefits such a pension, provident
fund, health insurance and paid leave even though they work
for decades resulting in social insecurity.
48. The question that arises now is as to what should be the
appropriate honorarium payable to such instructors/teachers.
No doubt, they were appointed on a fixed honorarium of Rs.
7,000/- per month way back in the year 2013-14 but that fixed
honorarium was only for a period of 11 months or for the
renewed period thereafter but was not applicable for their
extended term on the expiry of contracted period. In the wake
of the subsequent renewed contract for the period 2016-17
fixing honorarium @ Rs.8,470/- per month, the question is
what would be the honorarium payable to them after 2017-18
as there is no material on record to establish that any fresh
contract was executed for the subsequent years.
49. At this juncture it would be necessary to advert to yet another
submission that has been put forth by the State. It is
contended that the fixation of honorarium of these
instructors/teachers is a policy decision wherein Court has no
role to play. This cannot be accepted in the facts and
28
circumstances of the case. The fixation of honorarium to the
instructors/teachers may be a policy decision but it cannot be
exercised in an arbitrary manner so as to subject the
instructors/teachers to ‘ Begar’ . The honorarium has to be fixed
in consonance with the duties assigned to these
instructors/teachers depending upon their stature. Therefore,
any policy decision of the Government permanently fixing the
honorarium of the instructors/teachers for all times to come,
cannot be justified and approved of as periodical revision
depending upon the price rise, cost of living and other host of
factors. It is always permissible to revise the honorarium once
fixed, not only in the case of instructors/teachers but also in
the employment of workers/labourers.
50. It is admitted on record that the State Government in the year
2016-17 had submitted a proposal to pay Rs. 15,000/- per
month as honorarium to them; meaning thereby, that the State
Government acknowledges that the honorarium initially fixed
for these instructors/teachers is insufficient and has to be
increased. This realization probably may be for the reason that
in the year 2016-17 not even the labourers/unskilled workers
29
were being paid such low honorarium. The minimum wages Act
provided for a minimum wage of Rs.7,214/- per month in
2016-17 to the daily unskilled workers. Therefore, the
Government might have thought that such
instructors/teachers cannot be paid honorarium at a lower
rate than the workers. Despite the above recommendations, the
PAB approved and sanctioned honorarium to them at the rate
of Rs. 8,470/- per month and that too for the year 2016-17
only.
51. In the subsequent year, a fresh proposal was submitted by the
State Government to the PAB to pay Rs. 17,000/- per month
as honorarium to these instructors/teachers. It was also
approved by the PAB. Even the Additional Chief Secretary
(Basic Education), Government of Uttar Pradesh acknowledged
vide Letter dated 02.06.2017 that the Government has
accepted the proposal for payment of Rs. 17,000/- per month
as honorarium to these instructors/teachers. However, despite
such an acceptance, the Executive Committee of the Shiksha
Pariyojna Parishad fixed the honorarium for these
instructors/teachers at the rate of Rs. 9,800/- per month for
30
the year 2017-18 only. However, they were not even paid the
honorarium of Rs. 9,800/- per month fixed and determined,
what to say about the proposed and accepted honorarium of
Rs. 17,000/- per month.
52. It is admitted on record that the honorarium payable to these
instructors/teachers which was fixed at Rs. 7,000/- per month
in the year 2013-14 was enhanced to Rs. 8,470/- per month in
the year 2016-17 and then to Rs. 9,800/- per month in the year
2017-18 but even then, they were never paid Rs.9,800/- per
month. This may be probably due to the renewed contract for
the year 2017-18 wherein these instructors/teachers agreed
for Rs.8,470/- per month but this renewed contract also ended
and there was no fresh contract. Thus, the honorarium fixed in
the initial contract stood revised and substituted by Rs.8,470/-
per month rather by Rs. 9,800/- per month in the next year
and could not have been reduced thereafter in the absence of
any contract to the contrary. It must be borne in mind that
there was no stipulation under the contract that the
honorarium once fixed, cannot be revised or refixed or
enhanced or once revised could be reduced. In this situation,
31
the State Government was not justified in reducing the
honorarium payable to these instructors/teachers from the
year 2019-20 onwards again to Rs. 7,000/- per month after it
was enhanced to Rs.8,470/- for the year 2016-17 and to Rs.
9,800/- per month in the year 2017-18. The State Government
cannot take away the benefit which is once extended to these
instructors/teachers in a unilateral way without following the
principles of natural justice.
53. The above facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the
State Government was conscious of the fact that the
honorarium of these instructors/teachers initially fixed under
the contract is open to change and is revisable, if not on year-
to-year basis but periodically. The honorarium cannot remain
stagnant for all times to come.
54. Article 23 of the Constitution provides with a general
prohibition against “traffic in human beings, beggar and other
similar forms of forced labour”. In the landmark case of
7
People’s Union For Democratic Rights v. Union of India ,
the Supreme Court has adopted an expansive interpretation of
7
(1982) 3 SCC 235
32
Article 23 of the Constitution. The court explained the meaning
of “Forced labour” to encompass any work or service rendered
unwillingly as a result of force or compulsion. It held that
“force” under Article 23 of the Constitution not only includes
physical or legal force but also economic compulsion due to
which the individual is left with no other alternative but to
accept renumeration less than the minimum wages. It was held
that when a person is rendering service or doing labour at a
meagre amount less than the minimum wages, then he is not
voluntarily working, he is being forced by his economic
hardship to accept the pay. The case also covers contractual
workers who may have formally agreed to such terms, as such
agreements are often the product of uneven bargaining power
and do not represent free and voluntary consent in a
substantive sense. Thus, this Article takes a hit at every form
of forced labour, whether it is a direct case of forced labour or
case of forced labour hidden under the guise of voluntary work
or contractual work. Any unfair practice fixing remuneration of
these instructors/teachers permanently as Rs. 7,000/- per
month or Rs. Rs. 8,470/- per month for all times is a kind of
33
forced labour amounting to ‘ Begar’ which is strictly prohibited
under Article 23 of the Constitution.
55. In the present case, the further unilateral reduction of the
already low renumeration has placed these part time
instructors/teachers in place of economic vulnerability. These
instructors’/teachers’ position is worsened by Clause 5 of their
employment contract, which explicitly prohibits them from
taking up any other employment, part-time or whole-time. This
clause, operating in tandem with the State’s unilateral wage
reduction, creates a coercive cage. The instructors/teachers
are left with no alternative, they cannot seek supplementary
income elsewhere due to the contractual bar, and they cannot
refuse the reduced wages due to economic necessity. This
complete deprivation of choice is the essence of the “force”
contemplated in the abovementioned case.
56. Consequently, the State’s actions has created a condition of
economic coercion that is inconsistent with the constitutional
safeguards against forced labour. The State’s action of
withdrawing a legitimately enhanced wage and then allowing
honorarium to remain artificially depressed would, in
34
substance, be inconsistent with the spirit of Article 23 of the
Constitution which prohibits all forms of forced labour. The
State, under the guise of contractual management or financial
constraint, cannot compel labours/teachers to such coercive
circumstances.
57. In view of the above discussion, one thing is very clear that the
honorarium fixed for these instructors/teachers under the
contract cannot remain stagnant and is revisable suitably on
periodical basis and that if once revised and increased cannot
be reduced for subsequent periods.
58. Now the issue is the manner and the basis on which the
honorarium payable to these instructors/teachers has to be
revised and fixed.
59. The Samagra Shiksha Scheme subsumed the earlier Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan came into being in the year 2018. It is a
centrally sponsored scheme which promotes primary education
at the State/Union Territory level. It provides for the fund
sharing pattern in the following manner inter se the Union and
the State or Union Territory:
(i) For eight North-Eastern States and three Himalayan
States, in the ratio of 90:10;
35
(ii) For all other States and Union Territories, in the ratio
of 60:40; and
(iii) For Union Territories without legislature, it is 100% by
the Union.
60. The aforesaid scheme aims for providing additional support to
the States and the Union Territories to improve the quality of
primary education.
61. The Scheme is implemented at the national level by Governing
Council headed by the Minister of Education and then there is
a Project Approval Board at the national level which is headed
by the Secretary, Department of School Education and
Literacy. It is the primary function of the PAB to approve the
annual work plan and budget of States and Union Territories.
It has full financial powers to approve plans and sanction the
budgets for the implementation of the scheme. No other
authority has any say in the financial matters and that
connected with the budget of the scheme. The aforesaid powers
and functions of the PAB and that it is a national level
administrative body is duly spelled out in Chapters 14.2.2 and
14.2.4 of the scheme.
36
62. At the State level, there is a Governing Council headed by the
Chief Minister/State Education Minister and then there is an
Executive Committee headed by the Chief
Secretary/Commissioner/Education Secretary of the
State/Union Territory. The Governing Council is vested with
the power to frame necessary policies and to facilitate Center-
State Coordination, whereas, the administrative powers vests
with the Executive Committee. However, none of the above two
bodies are vested with any financial powers or the power to
sanction budget. Therefore, the power to sanction budget
remains in the exclusive domain of PAB. It means that under
the scheme, it is only the PAB who has the authority to
sanction budget and inter alia to even fix honorarium of the
instructors/teachers.
63. The Act is completely silent with regard to the financial matters
and the fixation of honorarium admissible to the
instructors/teachers appointed under the scheme. However,
Section 24 of the Act provides for the duties of the teachers
appointed under the scheme and Section 27 inter alia lays
down that no teacher shall be deployed for any non-educational
37
purpose other than the work in connection with the decennial
population census, disaster relief duties or duties relating to
elections to the local authority or the State Legislature or the
Parliament, as the case may be. In other words, teachers under
the scheme can be deployed in certain non-educational work
also.
64. It is only Rule 20 of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 framed under the Act
which provides for the salary, allowances and conditions of the
service of teachers appointed under the scheme. It inter alia
vide sub-rule 20 (3) provides that the scales of pay and
allowance, medical facilities, pension/gratuity/provident fund
and other prescribed benefits of teachers shall be at par for
similar qualification, work and experience of other teachers. It
necessarily means that the instructors/teachers appointed
under the scheme for the benefit of the primary education
under the Act have been placed at par with other
instructors/teachers and that apart from pay, they are entitled
to allowances, medical facilities, pension/gratuity/provident
fund and similar benefits.
38
65. In view of the foregoing provisions and the scheme, it is evident
that the instructors/teachers appointed under the scheme
have to be at par with other instructors/teachers and they have
to perform not only the academic duties but certain other non-
educational duties as well. They are entitled to honorarium at
par with the other instructors/teachers. However, under the
facts and circumstances of the case, the instructors/teachers
appointed under the scheme described as part time contractual
instructors/teachers, are being paid fixed honorarium of
Rs.7,000/- per month only, which is even lesser than the
minimum wages admissible to the workers/labourers.
Accordingly, as mentioned earlier, the honorarium payable to
these instructors/teachers needs to be revised periodically.
This periodic revision has to be done by none other than PAB
and its decision is to be treated as final and binding as no other
authority or body under the Act or the scheme has any power
to sit over its decision and to take a contrary view. In the case
at hand, the honorarium initially fixed at Rs.7,000/- per month
was revised to Rs.8,470/- and thereafter, the PAB had opined
and fixed it at Rs.9,800/- per month for the year 2017-18. Once
39
such a decision had been taken, it was no one’s business to
intervene and to reduce the honorarium and pay either
Rs.8,470/- or Rs.7,000/- per month to these
instructors/teachers.
66. It may also be noted that PAB had determined the honorarium
of Rs.17,000/- per month for the year 2017-18 but this was
not implemented. Therefore, in all earnest, the
instructors/teachers appointed under the scheme became
entitled for payment of honorarium at the rate of Rs.17,000/-
per month for the year 2017-18 and thereafter, till it is suitably
revised by the PAB. There is nothing on record to demonstrate
that any revision of honorarium has taken place after 2017-18
by the PAB but even then that the honorarium was lowered to
the initial one that is Rs.7,000/- per month. Therefore, the
payment of honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month to the
instructors/teachers appointed under the scheme from the
year 2018-19 onwards is completely illegal, arbitrary and
unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
67. In the light of the above discussion, it is most appropriate for
us to direct for the payment of honorarium at the rate of
40
Rs.17,000/- per month to all instructors/teachers appointed
under the scheme from the year 2017-18 onwards till the same
is revised by the appropriate authority i.e., PAB and further
that the PAB shall periodically revise the honorarium fixed for
these instructors/teachers, if not annually but once in three
years.
68. 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
above Sub-section (5) of Section 7 of the Act reads as under :-
“ (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (4), the State Government shall,
taking into consideration the sums provided by
the Central Government to a State Government
under sub-section (3), and its other resources,
be responsible to provide funds for
implementation of the provisions of the Act.”
41
69. 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.
70. On the basis of the above discussion, we conclude as under :-
i) The appointment of the part time or contractual
instructors/teachers in fact no longer remains contractual in
42
nature once the contract period of eleven months for which
they were initially appointed or the extended contract period
stood expired;
ii) 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;
iii) 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;
iv) 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;
v) The PAB having once approved the proposal for fixing
Rs.17,000/- per month as honorarium to these
43
instructors/teachers, no authority can sit over such a decision
and pass orders contrary to it;
vi) 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”;
vii) 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;
viii) 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 ‘ and unfair practice which is violative of
Begar’
Article 23 of the Constitution;
ix) 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
44
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.
71. In view of the above discussion, the question formulated in
paragraph 14 above is answered 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. 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.
72. Thus, all these instructors/teachers are entitled to receive
honorarium at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month with effect
from 2017-18. The State Government shall start paying
honorarium to them at the rate of Rs. 17,000/- per month
45
w.e.f. 01.04.2026 and the arrears of which shall be paid to
them by the State Government within a period of six months
from today. The State Government may recover the
contribution of the Central Government from the Union of
India.
73. Accordingly, the Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P (C) No.9459
of 2023 and S.L.P. (C) Nos.3331-3334 of 2024 filed by the
Welfare Association and teachers respectively are allowed
whereas the Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1744-
1749 of 2026 filed by the State of U.P. & Ors. are dismissed in
the above terms.
……………………………………...J.
[PANKAJ MITHAL]
…………………………………...J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 04, 2026
46