In a major relief for thousands of instructors working in Uttar Pradesh’s upper primary schools, the Supreme Court has directed the State government to pay them an honorarium of ₹17,000 per month. The Court strongly criticised the long-standing practice of paying them ₹7,000, calling it exploitative and inconsistent with constitutional protections against forced labour.
The judgment was delivered on February 4, 2026, while deciding a batch of appeals involving instructors appointed under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan and later under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside J&K High Court Order in NRI Custody Fight, Sends Case Back for Fresh Decision
Background of the Case
The dispute revolved around part-time contractual instructors appointed by the Uttar Pradesh government in 2013 to teach subjects like physical education, art, and work education in upper primary schools.
These instructors were hired through an advertisement issued in February 2013. They were appointed for 11 months on a fixed honorarium of ₹7,000 per month. Their contracts were renewed repeatedly over the years, but their pay remained mostly unchanged.
Although proposals were made by the State government to increase the honorarium, instructors claimed they were denied the revised amount. They approached the Allahabad High Court, where a single judge ordered payment of ₹17,000 per month from March 2017. However, a Division Bench later restricted this relief only for the 2017–18 period.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC Order, Says High Courts Can’t Strike Off Plaint When CPC Remedy Exists
Both instructors and the State government challenged the High Court’s decision, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Court
The instructors argued that the honorarium paid to them was lower than minimum wages in some years and did not reflect their workload or qualifications. They contended that once government authorities approved ₹17,000 as honorarium, the State could not withdraw or reduce it.
Their counsel submitted that stagnation of pay for years defeated the purpose of providing quality education under the Right to Education law.
On the other hand, the State government argued that fixation of honorarium was a policy decision and courts should not interfere. It also claimed that funding for the scheme was to be shared with the Central government and the State could not be solely burdened with payment obligations.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court emphasised the central role of teachers in nation-building and highlighted the constitutional mandate of providing quality education to children.
The bench noted that although the instructors were described as part-time contractual workers, they performed duties similar to regular teachers and were barred from taking other employment. “The nomenclature used to describe the instructors/teachers as part-time contractual teachers is completely deceptive,” the Court observed.
It further held that their continuous service for over a decade created a degree of permanency in their roles. The Court remarked that their appointments were effectively substantive in nature, given the ongoing requirement of instructors under the education scheme.
The bench also took serious note of stagnant or reduced honorarium despite rising costs of living. It observed, “Any unfair practice fixing remuneration… permanently as ₹7,000 per month… is a kind of forced labour amounting to ‘Begar’ which is strictly prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution.”
The Court said payment of such low honorarium, combined with restrictions on taking other jobs, created economic coercion and violated constitutional safeguards.
Authority to Fix Honorarium
The Supreme Court clarified that the Project Approval Board (PAB) under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme has exclusive authority to approve budgets and fix honorarium. It held that once the PAB approved ₹17,000 per month for the 2017–18 period, no State authority could reduce or ignore that decision.
The Court also ruled that honorarium cannot remain frozen indefinitely and must be revised periodically to reflect changing economic conditions.
Responsibility of the State Government
Addressing the funding dispute, the Court held that the State government carries the primary responsibility for implementing the Right to Education Act. It said the State must pay instructors even if the Central government delays its share of funds.
“The State Government may recover the contribution of the Central Government… but cannot deny payment to instructors/teachers,” the bench stated.
Read also:- Supreme Court Says Leasing a Flat Alone Doesn't Make Buyer Commercial Investor, Revives
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the instructors and their welfare association, while dismissing those filed by the State government.
The Court directed that all eligible instructors be paid ₹17,000 per month from the 2017–18 period until further revision by the appropriate authority. It further ordered the State government to begin payment at this rate from April 1, 2026, and clear arrears within six months.
Case Title: U.P. Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9459 of 2023 & connected matters
Decision Date: February 4, 2026
