When a Bond Becomes a Weapon of Exploitation

On February 9, 2016, hundreds of young teachers were appointed under the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) scheme. As a condition of employment, we were required to sign a bond. On the surface, it appeared to be a mere formality. In reality, it was a weapon of coercion. The message was clear: sign the bond, or your appointment will be cancelled, and the job handed to someone on the waiting list. Under the looming threat of unemployment, teachers signed—not out of free will, but under duress.

On 16 March 2022, the Division Bench Judge of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court delivered a landmark ruling exposing the injustice of this bond. The State Government, in its defence, argued that the RMSA-2016 appointment orders “specifically indicated they were contractual and co-terminus with the RMSA Scheme” and that we “cannot claim parity with candidates appointed on a regular scale.” It also relied on the bond agreement as one of its primary lines of defence, presenting it as evidence against the RMSA-2016 teachers. However, the Hon’ble High Court rejected these arguments outright and ruled that RMSA-2016 teachers are entitled to the same pay scale as their counterparts—SSA 2010, SSA 2013, and RMSA 2013 teachers—in the pay band of INR 9,300–34,800 with a grade pay of INR 4,200 per month. The Court’s reasoning was unequivocal: RMSA-2016 teachers perform equal work, undergo a similar selection process, and are posted in the same types of schools as their counterparts. The High Court held that “it will not be permissible for the State respondents to treat the two classes of teachers differently so far as their scales of pay are concerned.”

This ruling rendered the so-called “agreement” that tied us to fixed pay and contract status legally void. In other words, we are no longer bound by the terms we were coerced into signing.

Furthermore, on 11 July 2022, the State Government adamantly filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court of India against the Gauhati High Court’s decision. On 20 May 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, after due consideration, dismissed the SLP, thereby upholding the rights of RMSA-2016 teachers and reaffirming the principles of equality and fairness enshrined in the Constitution with the following words: ‘We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgement and order of the High Court; hence, the special leave petition is dismissed… Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Equal Pay for Equal Work: Equality before the Law

The law is clear. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work, enshrined in Article 39(d) of the Constitution and reinforced by Article 14, guarantees equality before the law. The Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court upheld this principle, drawing strength from the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others (2017) 1 SCC 148. The Apex Court, after reviewing a long line of precedents, declared in paragraph 58:

             “In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action, besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Anyone who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependants would suffer immensely if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.”

This judgment resonates deeply with the plight of RMSA-2016 teachers. We did not accept fixed pay willingly. We signed those bonds under duress, driven by the fear of unemployment—compelled to choose between dignity and survival, exactly as the Supreme Court described.

The Government’s “Secrets” Unmasked

After the judgment, another truth came to light through documents once classified as SECRET by the Government. These include:

1.            The Cabinet Memorandum of June 21, 2018 (No. EDS/SSA-CPA/009-2008 (VOL-I)), which states that the Government of India insisted on appointing RMSA teachers “on regular basis at par with state cadre and not on either fixed pay or on contract basis,” as per the RMSA Guidelines for Access to Secondary Education. These guidelines directed States/UTs to “maintain unified teaching cadres and avoid a separate ‘RMSA cadre,’ as teachers are part of the State’s teaching cadre.”

2.            The Post Creation Order issued by the Commissioner & Secretary Department of School Education, Nagaland (No. DSE/RMSA UPGRADATION/2011, dated October 28, 2015), which sanctioned 627 posts of Graduate Teachers for 112 upgraded RMSA Government High Schools (GHSs) in the pay band of ₹9,300–34,800 with a grade pay of ₹4,200 per month.

3.            The Cabinet Corrigendum (No. CAB-2/2013, dated October 5, 2015), which confirms that the Cabinet approved the creation of 112 Headmaster posts and 627 Graduate and Language Teacher posts, concurred by the P&AR and Finance Departments, for the upgraded GHSs under RMSA.

These declassified documents reveal a stark reality:

The Finance Department, P&AR, the Department of School Education, and the State Cabinet had all approved the RMSA-2016 posts on a pay scale.

The very foundation on which the Government justified our exploitation collapses under its own weight. Furthermore, at the 37th Meeting of the Project Approval Board (PAB), the then Director (SE) raised concerns about the State’s advertisement for RMSA teacher recruitment, noting that it did not comply with NCTE guidelines. The PAB expressed “serious concern” that the advertisement suggested teacher appointments were subject to RMSA funding. It advised the State to revise the advertisement to clarify that appointed teachers are the State’s responsibility, regardless of RMSA funding.

This is recorded on Page 7 of the Minutes of the 37th Project Approval Board (PAB) [17th Integrated RMSA], held on March 6, 2013, which considered the Annual Plan Proposals 2014–15 of RMSA, ICT, GH, VE, and IEDSS of the State of Nagaland under the Chairmanship of Shri R. Bhattacharya, Secretary, School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development.

The Real Injustice

The real injustice is not merely the bond we signed under duress—it is the Government’s continued refusal to honour the law of the land. The bond is void. The posts are sanctioned. The Courts have spoken.

The respondent State Government tried to use the bond as its first line of defence, but the Hon’ble High Court dismissed it as untenable. That single act exposed the emptiness of the State’s argument and the illegitimacy of its exploitation. Yet, to this day, the Government continues to invoke the very same bond to justify its inaction and contempt of the Court’s final verdict—claiming that since we signed it, they can terminate us at any time. Coercion then, coercion now.

The Only Question Left

After more than seven years of debate, the choice is clear:

Will the public trust the judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court, or the excuses of the Government of Nagaland?

Media Cell, NRMSATA-2016