Case at a Glance
Hundreds of full-time and part-time teachers in Uttar Pradesh’s Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas (KGBVs), residential schools for disadvantaged girls, have worked for years on contracts of 11 months and 29 days on a fixed honorarium, with no sanctioned posts. The Allahabad High Court held that this arrangement violates Articles 14 and 23 of the Constitution and amounts to a form of forced labour. It directed the State to create posts in line with the RTE Act Schedule, frame service conditions and consider regularisation within four months, and ordered that all KGBV teachers be paid Rs 17,000 a month in the interim.
The KGBV Scheme began in 2004 to provide residential schooling for girls from deprived sections; the judgment records that by 31 March 2024 KGBVs had 7.07 lakh girls enrolled. In Uttar Pradesh, teachers were engaged through an advertisement dated 10 July 2009 and paid an honorarium on a year-to-year basis. The lead petitioner had worked since 11 January 2010; in the connected petition of Reeta Verma and 376 others, 270 teachers had served for over ten years. Their contracts ran for 11 months and 29 days, with a one-day break before renewal. Part-time teachers received Rs 12,790 a month, out of which 25% was deducted towards EPF, leaving about Rs 9,592 in hand.
The teachers sought regularisation and regular pay. They pointed out that a Government Order dated 9 April 2026 had raised the honorarium of part-time instructors to Rs 17,000, while their own representation for similar treatment remained undecided. The Samagra Shiksha authorities answered that no posts had been sanctioned, that the teachers’ tenure was co-terminus with the scheme, and that funding was shared between the Centre and the State.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the State keep teachers in a long-running, centrally sponsored education scheme on repeated short contracts and a low honorarium, without posts or a path to regularisation, on the ground that the scheme has no sanctioned posts and is jointly funded?
Laudable Scheme, Unconstitutional Means
Justice Pankaj Bhatia rejected the plea that no posts had been sanctioned, holding that the scheme is a continuing one and that Section 8(d) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 obliges the government to provide teaching staff. On the funding objection, the Court applied the ‘pay and recover’ principle from the Supreme Court’s decision in U.P. Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association, (2026) 02 SC CK 1748 (2026 INSC 117): the State must pay and may recover the Central share. The Court found that KGBV teachers perform the same duties under the RTE Act as other State-school teachers, yet their contracts deny them even the hearing protection in the proviso to Section 24(2) of the RTE Act, and that the State had framed no service conditions under Rule 20 of the RTE Rules, 2010. It observed that “disadvantaged students in KGBVs are taught by teachers who are ill-paid and work under insecure conditions.”
Accepting that the scheme’s aim is laudable, the Court held that the means used are not. The teachers “have been paid inadequately, denied any security”, and the arrangement “is clearly violative of the petitioners rights under Articles 14 and 23”. Such practices, it said, “cannot be justified specially by a model employer like the State.” Continuous contractual engagement without creating posts or giving equivalent pay was held to be “a form of forced labour prohibited by” Article 23, and the Court noted that the honorarium “is even less than what is prescribed for semi-skilled workers”, adding that calling it an honorarium “is a cruel joke”. The judgment discusses, among others, Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Jaggo v. Union of India, (2024) 12 SC CK 0073, Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 04 SC CK 0038, and Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 07 SC CK 0007.
What the Court Actually Held
- Engaging KGBV teachers on continuing short-term contracts with a low honorarium, no security and no path to regularisation violates Articles 14 and 23 of the Constitution.
- The State must create or sanction teacher posts for KGBVs in line with the Schedule to the RTE Act, frame service conditions comparable to regularly appointed teachers, and consider regularisation of the petitioners and similarly placed teachers on the basis of qualifications and length of service, all within four months.
- Until then, all KGBV teachers, including the petitioners, shall be paid Rs 17,000 a month from the date of the judgment and shall have protection under Section 24(2) of the RTE Act.
- The Centre must share the cost as agreed, but the State cannot delay compliance for want of Central funds; it may pay and recover the Central share.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It affects thousands of contractual teachers in residential girls’ schools across Uttar Pradesh, not only the petitioners.
- It treats long-term underpaid contractual engagement by the State as a forced-labour issue under Article 23, not merely an equal-pay question.
- It holds that shared Centre-State funding is no excuse for the State to delay obligations owed to teachers under the RTE Act.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Contractual Teachers
- The interim Rs 17,000 a month applies to all KGBV teachers from 29 October 2026, not only those who filed petitions.
- Regularisation is to be considered against new posts on the basis of qualifications and length of service, so keep service records ready.
For Counsel
- The ruling pairs Section 8(d) and Section 24(2) of the RTE Act and Rule 20 of the RTE Rules with Articles 14 and 23; these are useful hooks for scheme-based employees in education.
- The ‘pay and recover’ principle answers the common defence that Central funds are awaited.
Key Takeaways
- ‘No sanctioned posts’ is not a defence where a scheme is continuing and a statute requires teaching staff.
- Contracts of 11 months and 29 days with one-day breaks cannot be squared with Part III when renewed for years.
- Four months is the deadline for creating posts, framing service conditions and deciding regularisation.
- Interim honorarium: Rs 17,000 a month for every KGBV teacher, with Section 24(2) RTE protection.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the judgment regularise KGBV teachers immediately?
No. It directs the State to create posts and to consider regularisation of the petitioners and similarly placed teachers against those posts, in accordance with law and on the basis of qualifications and length of service, within four months.
Who gets the Rs 17,000 interim honorarium?
All teachers working in the KGBVs, including the petitioners, from the date of the judgment (29 October 2026), until the directed steps are taken.
Can the State say it is waiting for Central funds?
No. The Court held the Centre must share costs as agreed, but the State cannot delay compliance on that ground and may recover the Central share later.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court has drawn a firm line: a welfare scheme for educating deprived girls cannot be run on the backs of teachers kept on insecure, below-wage contracts for over a decade. By ordering posts, service rules and an immediate pay floor, the Court has turned the constitutional promise of quality education into concrete obligations for the State.
Practical takeaway: KGBV teachers in Uttar Pradesh should claim the Rs 17,000 interim honorarium from 29 October 2026 and press for consideration of regularisation once the four-month window for creating posts closes.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com