Fixed Honorarium of ₹7,000 to U.P. Instructors Amounts to ‘Begar’: Supreme Court Directs ₹17,000 Per Month from 2017–18 Onwards

Case Name: U.P. Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (with connected appeals)
Citation: 2026 INSC 117

Date of Judgment/Order: 04 February 2026

Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Held: The Supreme Court held that part time contractual instructors/teachers appointed in Upper Primary Schools in Uttar Pradesh are entitled to periodic revision of honorarium and that continuation of fixed honorarium of ₹7,000 per month amounts to economic coercion and ‘Begar’ violative of Article 23 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that once the Project Approval Board (PAB) had approved honorarium of ₹17,000 per month for 2017–18, no authority could reduce or override that decision, as PAB alone holds financial sanctioning power under the Scheme. The Court further held that such instructors, having worked continuously for over a decade and being barred from other employment, cannot be treated as mere part-time or contractual appointees in substance.

Summary: The appeals arose from a common judgment of the Allahabad High Court concerning honorarium payable to part time contractual instructors appointed under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (now Samagra Shiksha Scheme). Initially appointed in 2013–14 for eleven months at ₹7,000 per month, the instructors continued for over ten years with renewals. Their honorarium was enhanced to ₹8,470 in 2016–17 and fixed at ₹9,800 for 2017–18, though the PAB had approved ₹17,000 for that year. Despite approval and acceptance by the State, the higher amount was never paid and the honorarium was later reduced back to ₹7,000. The instructors challenged this before the High Court, which partly allowed relief. Before the Supreme Court, the instructors argued stagnation, discrimination, and violation of Article 23, while the State contended that honorarium fixation was a policy matter and financial sharing under Section 7 of the Act limited its liability. The Court examined the Right to Education Act, Rule 20(3) of the 2010 Rules, and the structure of the Scheme, holding that PAB is the sole authority to fix honorarium and that teachers under the Scheme must be treated at par with similarly qualified teachers. It further held that unilateral reduction after enhancement was arbitrary and constitutionally impermissible.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Welfare Association and teachers, dismissed the State’s appeals, and directed that all such instructors be paid honorarium at the rate of ₹17,000 per month with effect from 2017–18, with payment at that rate commencing from 01.04.2026 and arrears to be cleared within six months. The State Government was held primarily liable to pay and permitted to recover the Central Government’s share under the principle of “pay and recover.”