Back to feed Read the full judgment
IndiaCivil
The State Of Maharashtra vs Sudhir S/O Motiramji Hiwarkar
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- Oct 13, 2026
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 1118
- Judges
- Dipankar Datta, Sheel Nagu
AI breakdown
- Sudhir, a lecturer at a self-funded college, was terminated and later won a court order for absorption and compensation.
- The Supreme Court set aside the absorption directive, agreeing with the state's argument that it applied only to grant-aided colleges.
- The court ruled that without the state being a formal party to the original case, the High Court's decision couldn't impose a financial obligation on it.
Outcome
The appeals are allowed on the above terms.
Taken from the judgment's conclusion. Check the full text for the exact order.
Parties
Applicant
The State Of Maharashtra
Respondent
Sudhir S/O Motiramji Hiwarkar
Judgment text (excerpt)
The State Of Maharashtra vs Sudhir S/O Motiramji Hiwarkar on 13 October, 2026
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
2026 INSC 1118 NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2963-2964 OF 2016
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … APPELLANT
VS.
SUDHIR S/O MOTIRAMJI HIWARKAR & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. These civil appeals, by special leave granted on 11th March, 2016, are
directed against the judgment and order dated 7th October, 20151,
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur 2,
allowing a writ petition3 of the first respondent4 as well as a subsequent
order of dismissal of a review application5 of the Joint Director of Higher
Education, Nagpur6, dated 12th January, 2016. While granting leave, the
direction contained in paragraph 26 (iv) of the impugned judgment was
stayed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MANIK KUMAR
1
impugned judgment
Date: 2026.10.13
18:40:55 IST
High Court
Reason: 2
3
Writ Petition No. 3081 of 2000
4
Sudhir
5
in Misc. Civil Application Stamp No. 208 of 2016
6
Joint Director
Page 1 of 8
2. The factual matrix, confined to what is necessary for the disposal of the
present appeals, is that Sudhir was appointed as a Lecturer in the
Commerce Faculty of the third respondent7 (run by the second
respondent8) in the academic session 1990-1991. The College was
granted permission to operate strictly on a “no grant-in-aid” basis9.
Following a series of earlier terminations and reinstatements, Sudhir …

Source: Indian Kanoon (indiankanoon.org). Indian court judgments are public records; the summary and translations are AI-generated.