CRE DATED 6/05/2026
Sayantani Bagchi
1. The State of Madhya Pradesh, in fulfillment of its constitutional and statutory obligations under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, introduced the Shiksha Unnati Scheme in 2013. The primary objective of the scheme was to bolster the quality of elementary education in rural and semi-urban districts by introducing specialized subjects. Under this scheme, the State invited applications for “part-time contractual instructors” for Upper Primary Schools (Classes VI–VIII) to teach physical education, art education, and vocational crafts.
2. The selection process for these instructors was conducted via a State-wide merit-based system. Candidates were required to possess qualifications strictly prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). While the “Regular Teachers” in Madhya Pradesh are recruited through the State’s official selection boards and receive a starting gross salary of ₹52,000 per month, the Instructors were appointed on eleven-month renewable contracts with a fixed honorarium of ₹7,000 per month. Unlike regular teachers, the Instructors’ contracts contained a restrictive covenant expressly prohibiting them from engaging in any other remunerative employment, private tuition, or trade during the subsistence of their contract.
3. Although the Scheme designated these positions as “part-time,” the operational reality differed significantly. The Instructors were mandated to remain on school premises for the entire duration of school hours, typically teaching 6 to 8 periods daily. Furthermore, they were assigned duties identical to regular teachers, including maintenance of student records, examination invigilation, and participation in non-academic government surveys. Over time, the State moved away from executing fresh annual agreements; instead, the Instructors’ services were continued through “automatic extension orders,” resulting in many serving for over ten continuous years without a break in service.
4. In 2016, acknowledging the rising cost of living, the State Education Department proposed an increase in the honorarium to ₹15,000. However, after internal deliberations, only a marginal revision to ₹8,500 was implemented. In 2017, the National Project Approval Authority (a Central body) recommended and approved an enhancement to ₹17,000 per month. This enhancement was formally accepted by the Madhya Pradesh State Cabinet and recorded in the official gazette. Despite this, the enhanced payment was never disbursed to the Instructors.
5. In a surprising turn of events in 2019, the State issued a Government Order (GO) reducing the honorarium from ₹8,500 back to ₹7,000. The State justified this “downward revision” by citing acute budgetary constraints, a shift in policy priorities, and a significant delay in the release of matching grants from the Central Government. The State maintained that as contractual appointees under a specific scheme, the Instructors had no vested right to any specific pay scale or parity with the regular cadre.
6. Aggrieved by the persistent stagnation and subsequent reduction of their wages, the Madhya Pradesh Instructors’ Welfare Association filed a batch of writ petitions before the High Court. They contended that the State’s actions were “manifestly arbitrary” and amounted to “beggar” (forced labor) under Article 23, as they were prevented from seeking other work while being paid “starvation wages.” The High Court granted partial relief, directing the State to pay the enhanced amount of ₹17,000 but limited it to only one academic year (2017-2018) on the principle of quantum meruit. Dissatisfied, both the Association and the State of Madhya Pradesh have preferred Cross-Appeals before the Supreme Court of India.
1. Whether the State’s action of paying a stagnant and subsequently reduced honorarium to Instructors who possess equivalent qualifications and perform identical duties to regular teachers violates the doctrine of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” under Article 14 of the Constitution?
2. Whether the classification between “Regular Teachers” and “Part-time Contractual Instructors” constitutes a reasonable classification or amounts to hostile discrimination, given the identical nature of their daily workload and responsibilities?
3. Whether the failure of the State to implement a Cabinet-approved pay enhancement, followed by a mid-contract reduction in honorarium, constitutes Manifest Arbitrariness and violates the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation?
4. Whether the combination of a low honorarium and a total prohibition on outside employment infringes upon the Instructors’ Right to Life and Dignity under Article 21, effectively creating a condition of “economic duress”?
PETITIONERS: Ritika, Ronit, Roshni, Arpita, Ruhee, Mayank, Mayank, Meghna, Mohit, Mouly