Surplus employees in grant-in-aid institutions are entitled to absorption in equivalent vacancies based on Article 14 parity.

The petitioner was appointed as a Steno-cum-Computer Operator on a contractual basis at respondent No. 4, a grant-in-aid institution, on 01.08.2005

His services were regularized by the State vide Resolution dated 27.01.2014 and he was placed in the regular pay-scale effective 21.07.2007

Subsequently, the petitioner’s post was abolished, and he was declared "surplus." Since respondent No. 4 stopped receiving grants, it ceased paying the petitioner's salary

The State initially contended there was no policy to accommodate such surplus employees in other institutions. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking transfer/absorption to a nearby institution and payment of outstanding salary

1. Whether the State is mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to absorb a regularized surplus employee of a grant-in-aid institution into another equivalent vacancy

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted to similarly situated employees in previous judicial decisions

The Court primarily applied the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which requires that persons belonging to a homogeneous class be meted out similar treatment

Precedent set by Coordinate Benches in Special Civil Application No. 14225 of 2017 (decided on 26.12.2019) and Special Civil Application No. 15435 of 2024 (decided on 26.09.2025), which established that the failure to absorb surplus employees when vacancies exist constitutes a breach of constitutional rights

Once services are regularized by State Resolution, the employee gains a right to be considered for absorption upon being declared surplus

The Court observed that the petitioner’s situation was identical to cases previously decided by the Court where surplus instructors and operators were ordered to be absorbed into other Industrial Training Institutions (ITIs)

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was a regularized employee, the State’s stance that there was "no policy" for absorption was unsustainable in light of Article 14

The Court noted that a proposal for the petitioner’s absorption had already been forwarded by the department on 23.01.2020 but remained pending due to administrative queries

Following the reasoning in the cited precedents, the Court held that the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service, although interregnum salary (between being declared surplus and re-absorption) would be treated as notional rather than actual

The Court directed the respondent State to decide the pending proposal/claim of the petitioner within 60 days of the judgment, taking into account the directions issued in the 2019 and 2025 precedents

While the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service, the State was directed to look into the specific issue of arrears/salary for the period the petitioner was protected by court orders or before being relieved

Rule was made absolute to this extent