Guest Teachers Initially Appointed in Nuh Not Entitled to ₹10,000 Hardship Incentive Under Haryana Teacher Transfer Policy: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Sandeep & Others v. State of Haryana & Others
Date of Judgment: 09 July 2026
Citation: CWP-9544-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that Guest Teachers who were initially appointed in District Nuh are not entitled to the ₹10,000 hardship incentive under the Haryana Teacher Transfer Policy merely because they have continuously served in the district. The benefit is available only to teachers who voluntarily opt for posting to hardship areas through the prescribed online transfer mechanism, and the Court cannot enlarge the scope of the policy through judicial interpretation in the absence of any challenge to its validity.
Summary: The petitioners, who had been serving as Guest Teachers (JBT/PRT) in Government schools in District Nuh (Mewat) for nearly two decades, sought the benefit of the ₹10,000 monthly hardship honorarium provided under the Haryana Teacher Transfer Policy and subsequent notifications. They argued that despite continuously serving in a notified hardship district and travelling long distances from their native places, they had been denied the incentive while similarly placed Guest Teachers transferred to Nuh through the online transfer process were granted the benefit. According to the petitioners, their continued service in Nuh should have been treated as deemed willingness to serve in the hardship area.
The State opposed the petition, contending that the hardship incentive was conceived exclusively to encourage teachers to voluntarily opt for transfer to difficult stations where vacancies remained unfilled. Since the petitioners were recruited specifically for District Nuh and had never been transferred there under the Teacher Transfer Policy, they did not satisfy the eligibility conditions prescribed in the policy and related notifications.
The High Court examined the Teacher Transfer Policy, 2016, the subsequent notifications issued in 2021 and 2022, and Clause 10 of the Teacher Transfer Policy, 2025. It found that the policy repeatedly used expressions such as “opts,” “is willing to be posted,” “against a vacancy,” and “transferred through online transfer drive,” clearly indicating that the financial incentive was intended only for teachers who voluntarily sought posting in hardship areas through the prescribed transfer mechanism. Since the petitioners were originally appointed in District Nuh and not transferred there under the policy, they did not fall within the category of beneficiaries contemplated by the scheme.
Rejecting the plea of discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the Court held that teachers who voluntarily opted for transfer to hardship stations constituted a distinct class from those who entered service through recruitment specifically meant for District Nuh. The classification bore a rational nexus with the policy objective of attracting willing teachers to underserved areas. The Court further observed that while the petitioners’ long service in Nuh deserved sympathy, hardship alone could not justify extending a monetary benefit contrary to the express terms of the policy. Since the petitioners had not challenged the constitutional validity of the Teacher Transfer Policy or the relevant notifications, the Court declined to expand the policy through judicial interpretation.
Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to the ₹10,000 hardship honorarium under the Haryana Teacher Transfer Policy as they were initially appointed in District Nuh and had not opted for posting there through the prescribed transfer process.