The Supreme Court has held that impleading a government officer cannot substitute for formally making the State a party to proceedings where the relief sought imposes financial and administrative liability on the government and set aside a direction requiring Maharashtra authorities to absorb a lecturer from an unaided college into another institution.

However, the Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu after considering the lecturer’s prolonged unemployment and retirement during the litigation, exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the State to pay him ₹10 lakh. This payment will be additional to the ₹10 lakh compensation already paid by the college management. 

Buy Now: 90+ Supreme Court Judgments – September 2026

Sudhir Motiramji Hiwarkar was appointed as a lecturer in the Commerce Faculty of a college during the academic session 1990–1991. The institution had permission to operate strictly on a “no grant-in-aid” basis.

Following earlier terminations and reinstatements, the management suspended him and initiated a departmental enquiry. After completing the enquiry and obtaining permission from the university, it terminated his services on August 17, 1999. Around the same time, the university permitted the college to close its Commerce Faculty from the academic session 1999–2000 because of insufficient students.

The University and College Tribunal, Nagpur, dismissed his appeal against termination on April 24, 2000. He then approached the High Court.

On October 7, 2015, the High Court quashed the termination and set aside the Tribunal’s order. It directed the Joint Director of Higher Education to include his name in the list of surplus lecturers or teachers and take steps to absorb him in another college. The management was also directed to pay ₹10 lakh as compensation in lieu of arrears.

Maharashtra challenged the absorption direction before the Supreme Court, which stayed that direction while granting leave in March 2016.

The Supreme Court identified the failure to implead the State of Maharashtra in the writ proceedings as a fundamental procedural defect.

The lecturer had added the Joint Director of Higher Education as a respondent only in March 2015, nearly 15 years after filing the writ petition. The State itself was never formally made a party.

The lecturer argued that the State had been adequately represented through the Joint Director and that an Assistant Government Pleader had contested the case on merits. The Bench rejected this submission, holding that representation through an officer does not dispense with the requirement to implead the State as a necessary party.

The Court explained that the absorption direction imposed a direct and continuing financial and administrative liability on Maharashtra. Such liability could not be fastened upon the State merely because one of its officers had been joined in the proceedings.

Relying on Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, Jagtu v. Suraj Mal and Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab, the Bench reiterated that substantive relief against the public exchequer requires the State to be formally arrayed as a party in its own name under Article 300 of the Constitution.

The Court also rejected the absorption claim on merits.

Maharashtra relied on a Government Resolution dated March 24, 1994, and a corrigendum dated March 21, 1997, to submit that its surplus lecturer absorption policy applied exclusively to grant-in-aid colleges.

The lecturer argued that Section 79(4) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, covered all affiliated colleges without distinguishing between aided and unaided institutions.

The Bench noted that the lecturer had not challenged the 1997 corrigendum. In the absence of such a challenge, his reliance on the Universities Act could not support the relief sought. His appointment in a college operating on a “no grant-in-aid” basis placed him outside the State’s surplus absorption policy.

The lecturer also sought parity with another lecturer, Bhaurao Pundlikrao Kadav, who was allegedly absorbed in similar circumstances.

Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court reiterated that Article 14 does not envisage “negative equality”. An illegal or irregular benefit mistakenly granted to one person does not create a legal entitlement for others to demand the same treatment.

The Court therefore concluded that neither the procedural position nor the applicable absorption policy supported the High Court’s direction.

Despite allowing Maharashtra’s appeals, the Bench considered the exceptional circumstances of the lecturer’s case.

He had remained out of employment since 1999 and attained the age of superannuation on November 30, 2025, while the appeals were pending. The Court noted that he had accepted ₹10 lakh from the management in lieu of arrears, possibly expecting that the High Court’s absorption direction would be implemented.

The Bench also observed that the State shared some responsibility for failing to firmly raise its non-impleadment objection at the earliest opportunity before the High Court.

To secure complete justice, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 and directed Maharashtra to pay the lecturer a consolidated ₹10 lakh within eight weeks of the judgment, in full and final settlement of all his claims.

The compensation previously paid by the management will remain undisturbed. The Court expressly clarified that the additional payment was ordered in the unique facts and circumstances of the case and must not be treated as a precedent.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Same GST Rate On Main Input And Output Can’t By Itself Bar Inverted Duty Refund: GSTAT