New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (February 4) pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for subjecting the state’s primary school teachers/instructors to a form of “begar” by paying them a meager fixed honorarium of Rs 7,000 per month for over a decade.The court while allowing appeals filed by teachers and their welfare association said that the part time contractual instructors/teachers appointed in the Upper Primary School in Uttar Pradesh were entitled to a revision in their honorarium as the amount of Rs 7,000 fixed in 2013-2014 amounted to ‘begar’ and unfair practice which is violative of Article 23 of the Constitution.“Any action of the State/Union Government to employ instructors/teachers on a fixed honorarium of Rs 7,000 per month as was initially fixed in 2013-14 amounts to ‘begar’ and unfair practice which is violative of Article 23 of the Constitution,” the court was quoted as saying by The Tribune.A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale directed the state government to pay an honorarium of Rs. 17,000 per month to all such teachers, effective from the financial year 2017-18, with arrears to be cleared within six months, LiveLaw has reported.“Since the PAB (Project Approval Board) for the year 2017-18 had determined the said honorarium to be Rs 17,000/- per month, all instructors/teachers appointed under the scheme are entitled for the payment of the same at the above rate of Rs.17,000/- per month with effect from 2017-18 till further revision takes place,” LiveLaw quoted the court as saying.The case originates from a 2013 Government Order by the Uttar Pradesh government for appointing instructors for physical education, art, and work education on a fixed monthly honorarium of Rs 7,000 for an 11-month contract, renewable annually under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, which has now merged into Samagra Shiksha Scheme, launched in 2018.Despite a sanction of the PAB that the honorarium be increased to 17,000 per month for 2017-18, the teachers continued to be paid Rs 7,000 from 2019-20. During the hearing, the state government cited lack of funding from the centre of its share under the scheme. The state government said that if the centre did not provide its 60% share, then the state government could not be compelled to bear the entire cost.The court however, rejected this argument outrightly, holding that the scheme’s funding pattern cannot override the statutory mandate of Section 7(5) of the Right to Education Act,2009. The court said that it is the duty of the state government to pay the honorarium to the instructors and teachers.“In the event, the Central Government fails to contribute its share of finances, the state government is free to recover it from the central government but cannot deny payment to instructors/teachers. The principle of “pay and recover” as such would be attracted and would be applicable,” the court was quoted as saying