Facts: Part-time contractual instructors/teachers were appointed in Upper Primary Schools in Uttar Pradesh on a fixed honorarium of Rs. 7,000 per month in 2013. Despite recommendations for enhancement, their honorarium remained largely unchanged, leading them to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The State government also filed appeals against the High Court's orders.
Procedural Posture: The Single Judge of the High Court directed payment of Rs. 17,000 per month from March 2017. A Division Bench modified this in Special Appeals, limiting the enhanced honorarium to the year 2017-2018 only. Multiple civil appeals were filed before the Supreme Court by the Welfare Association of instructors, the State of U.P., and individual teachers, challenging the High Court's judgment.
Issue: Are part-time contractual instructors/teachers in Upper Primary Schools in Uttar Pradesh entitled to a revision of their honorarium beyond the initially fixed Rs. 7,000 per month, and can the honorarium, once enhanced, be subsequently reduced?
Holding: Yes, the instructors/teachers are entitled to a revision of their honorarium. The Supreme Court directed the State Government to pay honorarium at the rate of Rs. 17,000 per month from 2017-18 onwards, until revised by the Project Approval Board (PAB). The court also held that the honorarium, once enhanced, cannot be reduced.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the instructors/teachers perform duties similar to regular teachers and are prohibited from taking other employment, effectively making them full-time teachers. The initial honorarium was deemed insufficient, and the State Government itself had proposed enhancements. The PAB, as the sole authority for managing finances under the scheme, had approved a higher honorarium of Rs. 17,000. Reducing the honorarium was considered arbitrary and violative of Article 23 of the Constitution, which prohibits forced labor ("Begar"). The court also emphasized that the State Government has the primary duty to provide funds for implementing the provisions of the Right to Education Act, even if the Central Government fails to contribute its share. The court invoked the principle of "pay and recover" allowing the state to recoup funds from the Union government later.