The State Must Reconsider Gurujis’ Honorarium Adequacy in Light of Articles 23 and 43

The petitioners, appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III (also referred to as Gurujis), received remuneration of ₹5,000 per month under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Niyojan Evam Samvida Ki Shartein) Rules, 2005.

They contended that the State had enhanced remuneration for other contractual personnel by order dated 23 June 2025 but had omitted their post, leaving them on the original amount.

They sought enhanced remuneration with arrears and compensation of ₹10 lakh each, relying in part on Smita Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

The State opposed the claims, arguing that remuneration was governed by the Rules and that enhancement and compensation were not legally due.

The five petitions, raising the same controversy, were heard and disposed of together.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to equal pay, minimum wages, or the enhanced remuneration granted to other contractual personnel.

Whether, notwithstanding the absence of established pay parity or entitlement to minimum wages, the State was required to reconsider the adequacy of the petitioners’ honorarium.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to exemplary compensation of ₹10 lakh each in light of Smita Shrivastava.

The Court considered the principle of equal pay for equal work, derived from Articles 14 and 16 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution; parity requires proof of substantial identity between posts, including their recruitment, qualifications, duties, responsibilities and other relevant conditions, and the burden rests on the claimants (Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya, (2011) 11 SCC 122; Monirujjaman Mullick; Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618).

It also relied on Article 23’s prohibition of forced labour and People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235, concerning the possibility that nominal remuneration may, in circumstances of economic compulsion, amount to exploitation.

Article 43 directs the State to endeavour to secure a living wage and decent conditions of work.

The minimum-wage notification was treated as an indicator of the inadequacy of the petitioners’ remuneration, not as a source of an entitlement under the Minimum Wages Act.

The Court found no basis to order equal pay or minimum wages: the petitioners had not established the wholesale parity required with other posts, and the Minimum Wages Act did not apply to them.

However, their honorarium had remained at ₹5,000 while the State’s 2025 order provided higher remuneration to other contractual personnel, and the notified minimum-wage rates demonstrated the substantial gap between that amount and wages considered necessary for workers’ subsistence.

Treating the payment as the petitioners’ livelihood, the Court held that its description as “honorarium” did not remove the need to assess its adequacy consistently with the constitutional principles discussed under Articles 23 and 43.

The Court did not grant the claimed ₹10 lakh compensation; it confined its operative relief to reconsideration of the honorarium.

The State may appoint an expert body for this purpose and must complete the exercise and pass appropriate orders within three months.

The petitions were disposed of; pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.