New Delhi: A group of part-time Punjabi language teachers hired between 1986 and 1991 in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)-run schools have finally won a legal battle against their employers Punjabi Academy, guaranteeing them a fair wage now.
This week, the Delhi High Court said that forcing teachers to work for decades on wages below the legal minimum wage falls under the definition of “forced labour” and constitutes a severe form of economic and social exploitation.
A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed a series of appeals filed by the Punjabi Academy and the Directorate of Education, Delhi government, upholding a July 2025 HC decision which ordered the Academy to re-fix the salaries of these part-time teachers at 50 percent of the pay of a regularly appointed full-time assistant or primary teacher.
It directed that the salaries be re-fixed within eight weeks, with arrears paid within the subsequent four weeks along with a 6 percent annual interest rate.
When initially appointed in the 1980-90s, majority of these part-time Punjabi teachers were paid meager monthly wages of Rs 500 to 600.
Even after multiple revisions and a 2016 Cabinet decision tying their pay to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), teachers with Senior Secondary (10+2) qualifications were earning a paltry Rs. 7,168 per month in 2025, while those with B.A. or M.A. degrees got Rs. 8,192 and Rs. 8,885 respectively.
In comparison, a September 2024 notification from the Delhi government’s Labour Department set the legal minimum wage for an unskilled laborer at Rs. 18,066 per month, a semi-skilled laborer at Rs 19,929, and a skilled laborer at Rs. 21,917.
The court observed that these teachers, who not only taught but were also responsible for administrative tasks such as paper setting, invigilation, and exam evaluation, were being paid less than half of the minimum wage of an unskilled labourer.
Fully funded, supervised and controlled by the Delhi government, the Punjabi Academy functions as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It had introduced a Punjabi Language Teaching Scheme to promote the Punjabi language in schools.
Also Read: India’s handicraft sector employs 1.13 crore but workers earn just Rs 270 a day, finds report
Why Academy challenged 2025 ruling
In its appeal against the 2025 judgement, the Punjabi Academy sought to justify this severe pay disparity by attempting to block the application of the landmark 2010 Durraj Fatima Naqvi case. In that case, part-time Urdu teachers under a similar government-administered academy were granted the 50 percent pay parity rule.
To avoid extending these benefits, the Punjabi Academy raised two key legal defenses.
First, it claimed that the Urdu teachers in the Durraj Fatima case were “trained teachers” holding professional B.Ed or equivalent degrees. In contrast, they argued that the Punjabi teachers were “untrained”, as many only held Matriculation or 10+2 qualifications.
Second, the Academy argued that under Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, subsequent notifications prescribed minimum qualifications that these teachers did not possess, legally barring them from claiming equivalent benefits.
The High Court flatly rejected both arguments, labeling the attempts to deny a decent wage as “ingenious but erroneous”.
Regarding the academic qualification argument, the Court clarified that the 2010 Durraj Fatima ruling had nothing to do with educational qualifications of the teachers.
Instead, that ruling was triggered because paying teachers a meager Rs 5,000-Rs 5,500 after decades of service “shocked the conscience of the court”.
Furthermore, the Punjabi teachers fulfilled all qualification criteria stipulated in the advertisements when they were initially hired decades ago, and their continuous service of 30-plus years was proof of their competence and capabilities, the court said.
On the issue of the RTE Act, the court observed that a notification dated 23 August, 2010, issued under Section 23(1) of the Act, explicitly exempted teachers appointed prior to the notification from having to acquire the newly specified higher qualifications.
As a result, the Academy could not use the RTE Act to block their pay adjustment.
The statutory power of Rule 101
A major part of the court’s judgment was on Rule 101 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. Under Rule 101(1), schools in Delhi are legally permitted to engage part-time teachers on a regular basis. Critically, Rule 101(2) explicitly mandates that the salary and allowances of a part-time teacher must be one-half (50 percent) of those of a full-time teacher appointed on a regular basis.
The court ruled that the executive cannot violate statutory laws, and any contract created with employees that pays less than the statutory mandate is legally invalid. Because the Punjabi teachers had served continuously without break, they were fully protected by this statutory guarantee, it said.
The bench did not mince words regarding the ethical obligations of government bodies. Referencing the Supreme Court precedents, the High Court emphasised that the state and its fully funded and supervised entities are bound to act as “model employers” with fairness, consistency, and reasonableness.
Chief Justice Upadhyay concluded that the Academy’s behavior completely violated Article 23(1), prohibition of forced labor as well as the Directive Principles under Articles 39, 41, and 42, and the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
By dismissing the appeals, the Delhi HC firmly established that statutory employment protections cannot be bypassed through arbitrary designations or contractual loopholes, finally guaranteeing a fair wage to the educators.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: All rise for the conman: How fake judges, fake courts and fake calls fooled the real system