1

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.

2

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

Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

1 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”

3

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

for Teacher Education

2.

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’

4

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

5

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-

6

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.

7

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

submitted a proposal to the Project Approval Board

3 for

enhancement of the honorarium payable to these

instructors/teachers to Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the

3

In short ‘PAB’

8

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

in the 254

th 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

9

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 vide its order dated

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

10

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

11

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

12

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(3) of Act before approaching the High Court.

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

13

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

14

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.

15

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

16

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.

Union of India

4, 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

Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

5 wherein

it was held that the High Court, while exercising its writ

4

(2008) 5 SCC 632

5

(2003) 2 SCC 107

17

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.

18

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

19

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।

गुरु साक्षात परब्रह्म, तस्मै श्री गुरुिे नम:॥ ”

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॥”

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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.

26

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 substantive ly

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.

27

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.

47. In Jaggo v. Union of India and Ors.

6 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

28

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

29

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

30

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

31

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,

32

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

People’s Union For Democratic Rights v. Union of India

7,

the Supreme Court has adopted an expansive interpretation of

7

(1982) 3 SCC 235

33

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

34

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

35

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;

36

(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.

37

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

38

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.

39

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

40

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

41

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 f or

implementation of the provisions of the Act.”

42

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

43

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

44

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 ‘Begar’ and unfair practice which is violative of

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

45

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

46

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