Paying primary school instructors a flat ₹7,000 a month for nearly ten years amounts to bonded labour, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday, delivering a sharp rebuke to the Uttar Pradesh government and calling the practice a clear violation of Article 23 of the Constitution.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale described the arrangement as an “unfair practice,” noting that teachers tasked with shaping young minds had been left with stagnant and unreasonably low wages year after year. The court directed the state to raise the monthly honorarium to ₹17,000, effective retrospectively from the 2017–18 financial year, and ordered that all arrears be paid within six months.
The judges pointed out that the instructors—engaged in upper primary schools for physical education, art and work education—were initially appointed in 2013 on 11-month contracts under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. While the contracts were renewed annually, the pay remained frozen at ₹7,000, even as official approvals for revision were granted.
Crucially, the Project Approval Board had already fixed the honorarium at ₹17,000 per month for 2017–18. Yet the revised amount was never implemented. Instead, teachers continued to receive the old sum, which was later reaffirmed at the same low level from 2019–20, despite rising costs of living and repeated recommendations for enhancement.
During the hearing, the Uttar Pradesh government argued that the problem lay with funding. Under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme—which replaced Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan—the Centre and the state share costs in a 60:40 ratio. The state claimed it could not be forced to shoulder the full burden if the Centre failed to release its share.
The court was unimpressed.
Rejecting the argument outright, the bench held that financial arrangements between governments cannot override statutory obligations under the Right to Education Act, 2009. Section 7(5) of the Act, the court said, places a clear responsibility on the state to ensure funds for implementation, regardless of delays or disputes with the Centre.
“The initial burden to pay honorarium to the instructors lies with the State Government,” the court observed, adding that the state is free to recover the Centre’s share later. Teachers, however, cannot be made to suffer in the meantime. The principle of “pay and recover,” the bench said, squarely applies.
The court further noted that while the appointments were labeled “part-time” or “contractual,” the reality had changed over time. Once instructors continued beyond the original 11-month term through repeated renewals, the arrangement could no longer be treated as a short-term contractual engagement used to justify depressed wages.
By directing payment at the ₹17,000 rate from 2017–18 onward, the Supreme Court underscored that fair remuneration for teachers is inseparable from the right to quality education for children. Chronic underpayment, the bench made clear, is not just an administrative lapse—it is a constitutional wrong.
