Supreme Court: a decree against the State exchequer doesn't bind the State unless it's a party

A lecturer at an unaided college in Nagpur was terminated in 1999 after a departmental enquiry; the Bombay High Court in 2015 quashed the termination and directed the Joint Director of Higher Education to absorb him elsewhere, with Rs. 10 lakh compensation, even though the State of Maharashtra itself had never been made a party to the writ petition — only the Joint Director, an officer, had been impleaded, 15 years after the petition was filed. Allowing the State's appeal on 13 October 2026, Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu held that relief fastening liability on the public exchequer cannot be granted against the State unless the State itself, as a juristic entity under Article 300 of the Constitution, is actually impleaded; impleading only a departmental officer does not suffice, following Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, Jagtu v. Suraj Mal and Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab. The Court also reaffirmed that Article 14 does not permit 'negative equality' — an illegal benefit mistakenly given to one employee does not entitle another to demand that the same illegality be repeated for them.

On facts, the college fell outside the State's own surplus-absorption policy, so the absorption direction was unjustified either way. Still, invoking Article 142's 'complete justice' power, the Court directed a one-time Rs. 10 lakh consolidated payment to the lecturer, expressly stating this would not be treated as a precedent.