Supreme Court sets aside order allowing surplus employee's absorption as Head of Department

The case concerns whether a surplus employee, who was disengaged from the post of Lecturer, is entitled to be absorbed directly into the higher post of Head of Department based on pay scale equivalence and seniority criteria, or if absorption is limited to the post held or an equivalent/lower post.

Who it concerns: Appellants: The State of Maharashtra and others; Respondents: Sudhakar Shivaram Teke and others; Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan.

What the court decided

• Allowed the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra.
• Set aside the High Court order dated 27.09.2019 that had allowed the respondent's claim for absorption as Head of Department.
• Held that a surplus employee is entitled to absorption only against the post from which they were disengaged, an equivalent post, or a lower post, not a higher post.
• Clarified that any claim for appointment or promotion to a higher post constitutes a separate cause of action distinct from absorption.
• Disposed of all pending applications.

Also in the document

• The Court noted that the respondent had already superannuated in 2024.
• The Court expressed no opinion on any independent claims the respondent may have regarding subsequent appointment or promotion to the post of Head of Department.
• The Court stated that equivalence of pay scales alone does not alter the nature of the post for absorption purposes under the surplus employee policy.