In a significant judgment that brings relief to thousands of part-time instructors and teachers across Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the State Government is duty-bound to pay the honorarium fixed by the Project Approval Board (PAB). The bench, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan, emphasized that the "Right to Education" is not just about building schools but ensuring that those who impart education are treated with dignity and paid a living wage.

The Court was hearing a batch of appeals, primarily involving the U.P. Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, concerning the revision of honorarium for part-time instructors appointed under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (now Samagra Shiksha)

The case dates back to the implementation of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. In 2013, part-time instructors were appointed in Upper Primary Schools in Uttar Pradesh at a fixed honorarium of ₹7,000 per month.

In 2017, the Project Approval Board (PAB)—the body responsible for overseeing the scheme’s finances—recommended increasing this honorarium to ₹17,000 per month for the year 2017-18. However, while the Central Government initially approved this, the State of Uttar Pradesh refused to implement the hike, citing a lack of funds and claiming that the Centre had eventually reduced its budgetary allocation.

The teachers approached the Allahabad High Court. While a Single Judge ruled in favor of the teachers, a Division Bench later set aside that order, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Justice Pankaj Mithal, writing the judgment, began by highlighting the importance of education as a cornerstone of national progress. He noted that the 86th Constitutional Amendment, which introduced Article 21A, made free and compulsory education a fundamental right for children aged 6 to 14.

The Court observed that for the Right to Education (RTE) Act to be successful, the "quality" of education is paramount. Quality education is impossible without motivated and fairly compensated teachers. The Court remarked that paying a meager ₹7,000 per month in this day and age is "not only low but virtually a pittance," which fails to provide even a basic decent living.

The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that since the scheme is a "Centrally Sponsored Scheme," the financial burden is shared (60:40 ratio). They contended that because the Centre did not release the full 60% share for the ₹17,000 hike, the State was not obligated to pay the increased amount.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument outright. The Court held:

The State is the Employer: The instructors are appointed by the State or its agencies. The contract is between the teacher and the State.
Statutory Obligation: Under the RTE Act and the 2010 Rules, the State has the primary responsibility to provide resources, including the payment of salaries and honorariums.
Internal Disputes No Excuse: A dispute between the Central and State governments regarding who pays what cannot be used as an excuse to deny teachers their rightful dues.

The Court stated, "The State Government cannot justify the low pay or the non-payment of the revised honorarium by citing the Centre’s failure to release funds. The teachers cannot be made to suffer due to an inter-se dispute between the two governments."

The Supreme Court exercised its powers to ensure justice for the instructors who have been fighting for nearly seven years. The key directions include:

Entitlement to ₹17,000: The Court held that all instructors/teachers appointed under the scheme are entitled to the honorarium of ₹17,000 per month starting from the academic year 2017-18.
Arrears Payment: The State Government is directed to pay the arrears (the difference between ₹7,000 and ₹17,000) for the period between 2017 and the present. These arrears must be cleared within six months.
Current Payment: The State must start paying the revised honorarium of ₹17,000 per month from April 1, 2026.
Right to Recover: The Court gave the State of Uttar Pradesh the liberty to recover the Central Government’s 60% share from the Union of India through appropriate legal channels, but emphasized that the payment to teachers must not wait for this recovery.

A notable aspect of the judgment is the Court's discussion on the dignity of the teaching profession. The bench observed that the PAB had itself determined that ₹17,000 was the appropriate rate in 2017. To keep teachers at the 2013 rate of ₹7,000 for over a decade was described as arbitrary and unreasonable. The Court noted that even if the PAB revision was meant for one year, the state should have periodically reviewed and increased the pay to keep up with inflation and the cost of living.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder to State Governments across India that the fundamental right to education includes the duty to maintain a robust and well-paid teaching workforce. By decoupling the State’s duty to pay from the Centre’s release of grants, the Supreme Court has closed a common loophole used by authorities to avoid financial liabilities toward contractual employees.

For the thousands of part-time instructors in Uttar Pradesh, this is not just a financial victory, but a validation of their dignity and the vital role they play in shaping the nation's future.