Supreme Court Directs Payment of Rs.17,000 Honorarium to Upper‑Primary Instructors; PAB to Review Every Three Years

A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale heard appeals concerning whether part‑time contractual instructors appointed in Uttar Pradesh upper‑primary schools were entitled to revision of the fixed Rs.7,000 per month honorarium and whether approvals by the Project Approval Board (PAB) bound the State. The appeals arose from a common Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had limited enhancement of honorarium to the year 2017‑18.

The Court allowed the appeals filed by the instructors and the Welfare Association, and dismissed the State’s appeals. It held that the so‑called part‑time contractual appointments, having continued for over a decade and performed duties equivalent to regular teachers, did not remain contractual or part‑time in substance; the PAB was the sole authority to fix honorarium under the scheme; once PAB approved Rs.17,000 per month for 2017‑18, that rate stood until revised; and periodic revision by PAB was necessary. The Court observed that “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.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In view of the above discussion, it is most appropriate for us to direct for the payment of honorarium at the rate of 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.” The Court further held that any practice of fixing a permanent low honorarium amounted to “Begar” and violated Article 23 of the Constitution.

Background The dispute began with the State of Uttar Pradesh appointing instructors for classes VI–VIII on an eleven‑month contractual basis in 2013 at a fixed honorarium of Rs.7,000 per month. Advertisements and selections followed NCTE norms. Contracts prohibited the instructors from taking any other employment. Over time renewals occurred and PAB approvals altered proposed honoraria: Rs.8,470 for March 2016–Feb 2017, and PAB approved Rs.17,000 for 2017‑18 though the State’s Executive Committee later recorded rates of Rs.9,800; in practice payments often remained at lower rates and for later years PAB recorded Rs.7,000 for 2019‑20. Instructors challenged the continued low payment in writ petitions. A Single Judge ordered payment at Rs.17,000 from March 2017; the Division Bench limited relief to 2017‑18 only. Multiple appeals reached the Supreme Court.

Petitioners argued that the honorarium was insufficient, that PAB approvals and the State’s acceptance (via an Additional Chief Secretary letter of 02.06.2017) substituted earlier contractual terms, and that periodic enhancement was necessary to avoid stagnation and economic coercion. The State contended writ petitions were premature for failure to exhaust scheme remedies, that fixation of honorarium was a policy matter, and that financial responsibility was shared 60:40 with the Centre under the Samagra Shiksha scheme. The Court rejected the maintainability objection, distinguishing the limited scope of Section 24(3) of the RTE Act, and relied on authorities permitting writ jurisdiction where appropriate.

The Court examined the substantive role of the instructors, noting they held requisite qualifications, discharged duties akin to regular teachers, and were prohibited from outside employment, thereby functioning de facto as full‑time and permanent incumbents. It held that PAB was the central authority for budget and honorarium fixation under the scheme, and that once PAB approved Rs.17,000 per month for 2017‑18 that decision could not be negated by other bodies. The Court directed payment of Rs.17,000 per month with effect from 2017‑18, ordered the State to commence payment w.e.f. 01.04.2026 and to disburse arrears within six months, and permitted the State to “pay and recover” the Centre’s share. The Court emphasised that honorarium must be revised periodically (at least once in three years) and declared sustained fixation at the initial low rate as violative of Article 23.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.9459 of 2023; S.L.P. (C) Nos.1744‑1749 of 2026; S.L.P. (C) Nos.3331‑3334 of 2024 Case Title: U.P. Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (and connected appeals) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri P. S. Patwalia, Senior Counsel; Shri S. R. Singh, Senior Counsel (for some instructors) For the Respondent(s): Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Senior Counsel (for State of U.P. and others)

Date of Judgment: February 4, 2026 Coram: Pankaj Mithal, J. & Prasanna B. Varale, J.