A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that the continued engagement of instructors well beyond their initial contractual period disqualifies the state from treating their appointments as purely temporary. The court observed that the instructors were retained for years, barred from taking up alternative employment, and continued to perform essential teaching duties—conditions that negate the state’s claim of contractual engagement.
“The government cannot evade its responsibility by describing such appointments as temporary,” the bench said, adding that under these circumstances, the posts must be deemed to have been created automatically.
The ruling brings closure to a long-running dispute that began in 2013, when instructors first demanded a revision of their honorarium, which had remained fixed at ₹7,000 per month for years. The court termed the prolonged stagnation of pay an “unfair labour practice,” noting that instructors had continuously rendered services without proportionate compensation.
The Supreme Court upheld the earlier order of the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench, which had directed payment of a ₹17,000 honorarium. The apex court ruled that the revised amount would be applicable from the 2017–18 financial year and remain in force until the next revision. It further directed the Uttar Pradesh government to begin payment of the revised honorarium from April 1, 2026, and clear all arrears within six months from February 4, 2026.
During a nearly three-hour hearing, the bench questioned the state government’s resistance to the revision. “Only when India learns, will India progress. What is the problem in increasing the honorarium?” the court asked. The state’s counsel reportedly concurred with the observation, strengthening the instructors’ case.
The dispute traces back to 2017, when the honorarium for instructors under the Basic Education Department was officially increased from ₹8,470 to ₹17,000. The decision, however, was not implemented after a change in government, prompting instructors to move the High Court. While a single-judge bench ordered payment with interest, a division bench later limited the benefit to one year, leading to the final appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal representatives for the instructors welcomed the verdict, calling it a decisive victory after nearly two years of proceedings in the apex court. The ruling is expected to have broader implications for contractual educators across states, reinforcing protections against prolonged temporary employment without fair pay.
