K.J. Somaiya Medical College and Research Centre & Anr. vs Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3180-82 of 2016, with Civil Appeal Nos. 3183-85 of 2016)
Background
Three lecturers at a Mumbai medical college, appointed between 1991 and 1993 when they met the qualification norms then in force, had their jobs terminated in 2004 after new 1998 Medical Council regulations came into effect, on the ground that they were no longer qualified. A university grievance committee recommended their reinstatement with retrospective approval, and the Bombay High Court upheld this in 2007, but the college did not comply and instead kept appealing, including all the way to the Supreme Court, where the case lingered for about 16 years without any interim stay of the High Court's order.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the college itself had conceded the lecturers were qualified under the rules in force at the time of their appointment, so their termination as "void ab initio" could not be justified retrospectively by later regulations. However, since nearly two decades had passed, the lecturers had aged out of or moved on from teaching careers, and the Medical Council maintained they were unqualified for recognition purposes, the Court held that actual reinstatement was no longer practical. Instead, using its special constitutional power under Article 142, the Court "moulded" the relief by directing the college to pay each lecturer a lump-sum monetary compensation (ranging from about Rs. 7 lakh to Rs. 11 lakh, calculated based on lost salary) in lieu of reinstatement, plus costs, with interest if not paid within two months.
Lesson Learnt
Even when a worker is legally entitled to reinstatement, if an employer delays and appeals for so long that reinstatement becomes impractical years later, courts can step in and award fair monetary compensation instead: delay by a wrongdoer does not let it escape a remedy altogether.