The Supreme Court has held that a High Court cannot order the State to absorb a college lecturer from a “no grant-in-aid” college as a surplus teacher without making the State itself a party to the case. It has also said that the State’s own policy for absorbing surplus teachers covers only aided colleges. But using its special powers under Article 142, it has directed the State to pay the retired lecturer Rs 10 lakh as full and final settlement. Sudhir Hiwarkar was appointed as a Commerce lecturer in a Nagpur college in 1990-91, which was allowed to run only without government aid. After several earlier terminations and reinstatements, he was terminated in August 1999 after an inquiry, and the University allowed the college to close its Commerce faculty for lack of students. The University and College Tribunal dismissed his appeal, but the Bombay High Court at Nagpur set aside the termination in 2015. It directed the Joint Director of Higher Education to put him on the list of surplus teachers and absorb him in another college, and it directed the college management to pay him Rs 10 lakh in lieu of arrears. The State appealed against the absorption direction alone. Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu allowed the appeal. The State of Maharashtra was never a party to the writ petition, and the Joint Director was added only in March 2015, nearly 15 years after it was filed. Relying on Ranjeet Mal, Jagtu v. Suraj Mal and Chaman Lal, the court held that an officer or department cannot stand for the State, and a direction creating a continuing financial liability needs the State to be formally impleaded. On merits as well, the 1994 Government Resolution and its 1997 corrigendum limit the absorption policy to aided colleges, and he never challenged the corrigendum. His claim of parity with another lecturer who was absorbed also fails, since Article 14 does not allow “negative equality”. But since he retired in November 2025 after a litigation spanning decades, and the State had also not raised the objection early, the court directed the State to pay him Rs 10 lakh within eight weeks. The Rs 10 lakh already paid by the management stays, and the order is not a precedent.
Note: This judgment is marked non-reportable, and the court stressed that the Rs 10 lakh is paid only in the unique facts of the case and is not a precedent, so is not a general rule that the State must pay in such cases. The court did not disturb the High Court’s decision to set aside the termination, and only set aside the absorption direction in paragraph 26(iv), so cant be said that the termination was held valid.
Citation: State of Maharashtra v. Sudhir s/o Motiramji Hiwarkar & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 2963-2964 of 2016, Supreme Court (Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu), decided on 13.10.2026 | 2026 INSC 1118
Leave a Reply