State of Maharashtra v. Sudhir S/o Motiramji Hiwarkar & Ors.
Background
Sudhir, a lecturer at a grant-less college in Nagpur, was terminated in 1999 after a departmental enquiry, around the same time the college's Commerce Faculty was permitted to close for want of students. His challenge before the University and College Tribunal failed, but the High Court later quashed his termination and granted him relief, including a specific direction in paragraph 26(iv) that the State of Maharashtra appealed against.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court noted that by the time of this appeal, more than a decade had passed, the college itself no longer existed, and ordering Sudhir's reinstatement or recovery of full back wages would be impractical and could render him destitute in his old age, while the State itself had not raised a timely objection on the point it now argued. Rather than deciding the matter either way on technical grounds, the Court invoked its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to "mould the relief," setting aside the specific direction under appeal and ordering the State to pay Sudhir a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,00,000 within eight weeks in full and final settlement of all his claims, expressly stating this was not to be treated as a precedent.
Lesson Learnt
When a legal dispute drags on for decades and the original relief (like reinstatement) is no longer realistic, the Supreme Court can use its special Article 142 power to award a practical, one-time monetary settlement instead, but such an order is tailored to that case's own facts and is not meant to set a rule for other cases.