Excluding Outside State Experience to Deny Retirement Age Extension Arbitrary: Supreme Court Grants Relief to Bengal University Officer
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra held that the insistence on restricting eligibility for extended retirement benefits based solely on teaching experience acquired within the State of West Bengal was arbitrary and illegal. The Court directed that the benefit of the West Bengal Government’s Notification dated 24.02.2021, which enhanced the retirement age from 60 to 65 years for certain non-teaching university positions with a minimum of ten years of teaching experience, must also apply to individuals who had obtained the requisite experience from universities or colleges outside West Bengal.
In a detailed judgment, the Court rejected the interpretation advanced by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and the respondent university authorities, who contended that the term “any State-aided university or college” referred exclusively to institutions within West Bengal. The Court stated that such a narrow reading lacked a rational basis and violated the constitutional principles of equality. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and declared the appellant entitled to the benefits of the 2021 Notification.
The appellant was initially appointed on 23.01.1991 as a member of the teaching staff at Cachar College, Silchar, in the State of Assam. Pursuant to the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005, the college was taken over as a government institution, where the appellant continued to serve in a regular capacity for a continuous period of sixteen years.
On 18.06.2007, the appellant responded to a public advertisement issued by the University of Burdwan, State of West Bengal, for the post of Secretary, Faculty Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Science. Upon selection, he was appointed to the said post and subsequently promoted to Senior Secretary on 26.01.2012. By the time the dispute arose, he had rendered over fourteen years of continuous service at the university.
On 24.02.2021, the Government of West Bengal issued a Notification enhancing the retirement age from 60 to 65 years for certain non-teaching staff in state-aided universities. The benefit was extended to individuals holding positions such as Registrar, Controller of Examinations, Inspector of Colleges, Dean of Student’s Welfare, Deputy Registrar, Deputy Controller of Examinations, Deputy Inspector of Colleges, and Secretary of PG and UG Studies Councils, provided they had a “continuous teaching background/experience of minimum 10 years in any State-aided University or College.”
Relying on this Notification, the appellant submitted a representation on 01.02.2023 to the Vice Chancellor of the University, seeking fixation of his retirement at 65 years. However, the University, in its reply dated 28.06.2023, declined the request, stating that the appellant lacked teaching experience in a university or college aided by the State of West Bengal, and hence would retire upon attaining 60 years of age on 31.08.2023.
Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Calcutta High Court by filing WPA 16596 of 2023. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 28.08.2023, holding that the term “any State-aided university or college” included institutions outside West Bengal and that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the 2021 Notification.
The State Government and the University filed writ appeals against this decision. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, through a common order dated 13.12.2023, allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the Single Judge. The Division Bench held that the term “any State-aided University or College” must be construed in light of the definitions provided in the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976, as amended in 2017. These amendments defined “State-aided University” as a university constituted and incorporated by a State Act and receiving grants from the Government of West Bengal.
Accordingly, the Division Bench concluded that the ten years of teaching experience must be from a State-aided institution within West Bengal. The appellant, therefore, was declared ineligible for the benefit of extended retirement.
The appellant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court recorded that the Notification dated 24.02.2021 did not specify a geographical limitation on the teaching experience. “The purpose of using the phrase ‘in any State-aided University or Government-aided College’ is only to denote that the employer, being a University or College must be an aided institution as against institutions which do not receive aid.”
The Court stated that the interpretation advanced by the State and the University failed to consider the plain language of the Notification and misapplied the statutory definitions. “The purpose of the Notification is not to exclude those who had acquired the 10 years of teaching experience from universities or colleges outside West Bengal.”
The Bench observed that the appellant had already served at the university for over fourteen years and that his teaching experience from Cachar College in Assam was considered while recruiting and promoting him. “For the first time when the appellant sought the benefit of Notification dated 24.02.2021, the respondents took the stand that the appellant did not have the qualification of having continuously served for 10 years in the State Aided University or College.”
The Court referred to Section 4 of the 1976 Act as amended, which empowered the State Government to notify the retirement age, stating: “The teacher must be a regular employee, receiving notified scales of pay, and holding a substantive post.” The Court concluded that the statutory context supported inclusion rather than exclusion.
The Bench also relied on previous judgments. In J.S. Rukmani v. Govt. of T.N. the Court had held: “It is difficult to see how the widow of a government servant who served the former State of Madras should not be entitled to family pension merely because the place where her husband was serving came to form part of a different State.”
In Harshendra Choubisa v. State of Rajasthan, the Court had struck down a recruitment policy granting bonus marks based on district residency, holding that “The criterion of merit cannot be allowed to be diluted by taking resort to such artificial differentiation.”
In the present case, the Bench concluded: “There is evidently no material to show how an employee who has already served the university for fourteen years will be better qualified for extension of service only if his or her past experience of teaching is only in State of West Bengal.”
“To insist on such a requirement for extension of date of retirement is totally unjustified.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in MAT 1762 of 2023, CAN 1 of 2023, CAN 2 of 2023 and MAT 1705 of 2023.
The Court further set aside the Notification dated 28.06.2023 denying the benefit of the Notification dated 24.02.2021 to the appellant. “The appellant will be entitled to the benefit of Notification dated 24.02.2021.”
The Court also directed that the appellant shall be awarded costs. “The appellant will be entitled to costs quantified at Rs. 50,000/-.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv; Mr. Shashank Shekhar, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR; Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.; Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv; Mr. Varij Nayan Mishra, Adv.; Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, AOR; Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, Adv.; Mr. Piyush Malik, Adv.
Case Title: Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar v. The State of West Bengal Service & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 910
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 11923 of 2024
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Manoj Misra
