The Supreme Court held that a State Government cannot justify paying low or inadequate honorarium to teachers appointed under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act by citing the failure of the Central Government to release its share of funds. The court clarified that the statutory responsibility to implement the provisions of the RTE Act rests primarily with the State, and financial arrangements or delays in funding between the Centre and the State cannot be used as an excuse to deny teachers their lawful remuneration.
The court was dealing with appeals arising from disputes related to the payment of honorarium to instructors and teachers appointed in Uttar Pradesh under schemes framed to implement the RTE Act. These teachers, engaged to impart physical education, art education, and work education in government schools, had been appointed on fixed-term contracts and were paid a modest monthly honorarium for several years. Despite approvals for enhancement of their remuneration by competent authorities, the teachers continued to receive the earlier lower amounts, leading to prolonged grievances and litigation.
The State Government argued that under centrally sponsored schemes such as those operating in the education sector, the financial burden was shared between the Centre and the State in a fixed ratio. According to the State, when the Central Government failed to release its portion of the funds, it was not feasible for the State to bear the entire financial burden of paying enhanced honorarium to the teachers. The State contended that its obligation to pay higher remuneration was contingent upon receipt of the Central share.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument and examined the statutory framework of the RTE Act. It noted that while the Act provides for financial participation by both the Central and State governments, a specific provision clearly places the obligation on the State to provide funds for carrying out the provisions of the Act. The court emphasised that this statutory mandate cannot be overridden by administrative arrangements or cost-sharing formulas adopted under government schemes. The failure of the Centre to release funds does not absolve the State of its duty to comply with the law.
The court explained that if the Centre delays or defaults in releasing its share, the State is required to first discharge its obligation towards teachers and other beneficiaries under the Act. After fulfilling its statutory duties, the State may take appropriate steps to recover the Central Government’s share. This approach, the court observed, ensures that statutory rights and obligations are not frustrated due to inter-governmental financial disputes.
The Supreme Court further observed that paying teachers a low honorarium for years together, despite approvals for higher remuneration, undermines the objectives of the RTE Act. Adequate and fair payment to teachers is an essential component of providing quality education to children, and denial of rightful remuneration adversely affects both teachers and the education system as a whole. The court noted that teachers appointed under the Act are entitled to be paid at rates approved by competent authorities, and prolonged underpayment cannot be justified on administrative or financial grounds.
The court reiterated that internal financial arrangements between governments are matters of governance and cannot be used to defeat statutory entitlements. It held that the right to education under the RTE Act carries with it corresponding obligations on the State to ensure proper implementation, including payment of fair honorarium to teachers engaged under the scheme. Any failure in this regard amounts to a breach of the Act.
In concluding, the Supreme Court made it clear that States must honour their obligations under the RTE Act irrespective of delays or failures on the part of the Central Government in releasing funds. The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory duties cannot be diluted by fiscal disputes and that teachers engaged in implementing the right to education must not be made to suffer due to funding issues between different levels of government.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.