Supreme Court: State must be party if public exchequer relief sought

The Supreme Court examined whether the State of Maharashtra was a necessary party to the proceedings and whether the absorption policy applied to a 'no grant-in-aid' college.

Who it concerns: Appellant: State of Maharashtra; Respondents: Sudhir (former lecturer) and others; Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu.

What the court decided

• Set aside paragraph 26 (iv) of the High Court judgment which directed the absorption of Sudhir into service.
• Directed the State of Maharashtra to pay Sudhir a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- within eight weeks.
• Declared the payment to be in full and final settlement of all claims, with the previously paid compensation remaining undisturbed.
• Allowed the appeals on the above terms.
• Disposed of pending applications and vacated interim orders.

Also in the document

• The Court held that the State of Maharashtra was a necessary party that was not properly impleaded, rendering the High Court's direction regarding absorption defective.
• The Court noted that Sudhir attained the age of superannuation on 30th November, 2025, during the pendency of the proceedings.
• The relief was granted under Article 142 of the Constitution to secure complete justice given Sudhir's advanced age and long period of unemployment.
• The Court explicitly stated that this direction is based on unique facts and shall not be treated as a precedent.