Paying Part-Time Teachers Below Unskilled Minimum Wages Arbitrary: Delhi High Court Upholds Pay Hike For Punjabi Academy Teachers
|The High Court noted that the teachers were being paid less than half of the notified minimum wage for unskilled labour despite teaching Punjabi and performing examination-related administrative work.
The Delhi High Court has held that paying part-time teachers below the minimum wages notified for unskilled labour is arbitrary, while upholding the salary refixation granted to part-time Punjabi teachers engaged by the Punjabi Academy and posted in schools run by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
The Court was hearing intra-court appeals filed by Punjabi Academy and the Directorate of Education, Government of Delhi, against a Single Judge judgment allowing writ petitions filed by part-time Punjabi teachers appointed by Punjabi Academy and posted in schools run by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed: “Taking cue from the observations made by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra), though these observations were made in the context of claim of regularisation, we are also of the opinion that the practice on the part of the appellants in denying the writ petitioners even the minimum wages available to an unskilled labourer, though the writ petitioners have been rendering their services for decades, is absolutely unfair and does not behove of a model employer that any State agency or a public body is expected to be.”
“Such denial of even 50% salary to the writ petitioners by the appellants which the appellants are otherwise mandated by the provisions of Rule 101(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, in our opinion, does not withstand the scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of India being absolutely arbitrary”, the Bench added.
Advocate Naushad Ahmed Khan appeared for the appellants. Advocate Nishtha Garg appeared for the respondents/teachers in Punjabi Academy, while Standing Counsel Tushar Sannu appeared for MCD.
Background
Punjabi Academy is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is fully funded, supervised and controlled by GNCTD. It introduced the Punjabi Language Teaching Scheme to promote Punjabi in schools where students demanded such instruction.
The writ petitioners were part-time Punjabi teachers appointed by Punjabi Academy and placed in MCD schools across Delhi. Most had been appointed between 1986 and 1991, while two were appointed later. Their monthly remuneration, initially ₹500 and ₹600, was revised over time but remained far below the notified minimum wage.
They approached the High Court claiming at least 50% of the salary paid to regularly appointed Assistant/Primary Teachers, relying on Durraj Fatima Naqvi and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (2010) and Rani & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2016). The Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, directed refixation of salaries at 50% of regular teachers’ salary, ordered arrears, and granted interest at 6% per annum.
The appellants argued that the Punjabi teachers could be distinguished from the Urdu teachers in Durraj Fatima because the latter were trained teachers with B.Ed or equivalent qualifications, whereas the writ petitioners did not possess such qualifications.
Court’s Observations
The Court noted the notified minimum wages for unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled labour and compared them with the remuneration paid to the writ petitioners.
The Court observed: “Accordingly, it is apparent that these teachers who are not only teaching Punjabi to students but are also engaged in various administrative works such as setting up of papers, invigilation in the examination and evaluation of answer books etc. are paid less than half of the minimum wage, which as per the notification of the Labour Department dated 26.09.2024, is to be paid to an unskilled labourer.”
The Court agreed with the Single Judge that the writ petitioners were similarly placed as the part-time Urdu teachers in Durraj Fatima, where a Division Bench had directed fixation of salary at 50% of regularly appointed teachers.
The Court observed: “We are in complete agreement with the observations made and the conclusion arrived at, after detailed analysis of the facts and law, by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.”
Referring to the statutory position noticed in Durraj Fatima, the Court recorded: “The Division Bench also noticed Rule 101(2) of the said Rules which mandates that the salary of a part time teacher has to include the allowances which shall be one-half of those of a full-time teacher appointed on a regular basis.”
The Court rejected the appellants’ attempt to distinguish Punjabi teachers from Urdu teachers on the ground of educational qualifications.
The Court noted: “It has also been observed by the learned Single Judge that besides this, the judgment in Durraj Fatima (supra) had nothing to do with the educational qualifications of the teachers.”
The Court further reproduced the Single Judge’s reasoning: “The very fact that Petitioners have continued for decades demonstrates their competence and capabilities and certainly makes them entitled to a decent wage after serving for a lifetime.”
The Court clarified that the teachers had given up their prayer for regularisation and that the remaining issue was payment of 50% salary.
The Court held: “We may note that though the writ petitioners had laid their claim for regularisation of their services which prayer was given up during pendency of the writ petitions. In this backdrop, what all has been provided for by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement is that they shall be paid 50% of the salary which is admissible to a regularly appointed teacher.”
It added: “Sub Rule 2 of Rule 101 clearly mandates that salary and allowances admissible to a teacher appointed on a part-time basis shall be one half of those of a full-time teacher appointed on regular basis.”
The Court held that all writ petitioners fulfilled the qualifications stipulated in the advertisements under which they were engaged, and the qualification argument may have been relevant to regularisation, but not to the 50% salary claim.
The Court concluded on merits: “For all the aforesaid reasons, we are not persuaded by the learned counsel for the appellants to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge.”
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Single Judge’s judgment directing refixation of salaries of the part-time Punjabi teachers at 50% of the salary of regularly appointed Assistant/Primary Teachers.
The Court directed compliance with the Single Judge’s judgment within eight weeks from the date of the Division Bench judgment. It made no order as to costs and disposed of all pending applications.
Cause Title: Punjabi Academy and Anr v. Avtar Singh and Anr (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:7097-DB)
Appearances
Appellants: Advocates Naushad Ahmed Khan, Arpit Mishra, Md. Mujtaba and Sejal Gupta
Respondents: Advocates Varun Mudgil, Eti Kushwaha, Rakesh Kumar, Sheetal Sharma, Harsh Sharma, Bharat Bhusan Bhatia, Anirudh Bakhru, Aayomi Sharma, Gaurav, Rishi Raj Gautam and Nishtha Garg; Standing Counsel Tushar Sannu with Advocate Devvrat Tiwari for MCD