Classifying Employees At Verge of Retirement Based On Past Experience From Universities Within Or Outside State Lacks Discernible Object: Supreme Court

The appellant challenged the Division Bench decision of the High Court, upholding the University and State's stance that a government Notification dated February 24, 2021, extending the retirement age from 60 to 65 years is inapplicable to him due to non-satisfaction of the 10-year continuous teaching condition in a university situated in West Bengal.

The Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra held, “After careful consideration, we conclude that the Notification’s intent was not to exclude employees with experience from universities outside the State of West Bengal. The text, the context, and the objective of the Notification reveal that, its purpose was solely to distinguish between state-aided and private institutions. Classifying employees based on past teaching experience from Universities within or outside West Bengal, particularly at the verge of retirement, after having served for decades lacks nexus and discernible object. We have thus allowed the appeals with costs.”

Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant was initially appointed as a member of the teaching staff at Cachar College, Silchar, State of Assam, in 1991. Under the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005, the college was taken over as a government college. After serving as such for a continuous period of 16 years, he applied in response to an advertisement for one vacancy in the post of Secretary, Faculty Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Science. He was selected, and after working for some time, he was promoted to the post of Senior Secretary. When the appellant rendered over fourteen years of service, the State of West Bengal issued a Memorandum increasing the age of retirement from 60 years to 65 years.

The appellant made a representation to the Vice Chancellor claiming the benefit of the same. The University informed that the appellant would retire on August 31, 2023, on attaining the age of 60 years, as he had no teaching experience in a university or college aided by the State of West Bengal. The Appellant’s petition before the Calcutta High Court was allowed by a Single Bench. However, the Division Bench held that extending the benefit of the Memorandum to experience acquired through universities or colleges outside of West Bengal will amount to supplying words to the Memorandum. It was reasoned that the word ‘any’ cannot be expanded. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

Referring to section 4 of the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976, the Bench explained that the intendment of Section 4, even as it stood before its amendment in 2017, was to provide that employees of a university or any college affiliated to such university shall retire from service on attaining the age of 60 years, subject to the condition that they receive pay in the revised scales. As per the amended provision, a teacher covered thereunder must be a regular employee receiving notified scales of pay, and must be holding a substantive post.

It was further explained that 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. Once an employee satisfies these conditions, the statutory provision enables the State Government to notify the date of retirement.

Coming to the Notification, the Bench stated that the purpose of the Notification is not to exclude those who had acquired 10 years of teaching experience from universities or colleges outside West Bengal. The Notification itself provides that enhanced age of retirement was granted to teachers of universities and colleges and now a policy decision was taken to extend the same benefit to non-teaching staff such as Registrars and Deputy Registrars, Controllers and Deputy Controllers of Examination Inspectors and Deputy Inspectors of colleges apart from Dean of Student’s Welfare and Secretary Council of PG and UG Studies.

“While prescribing the said condition of 10 years, the Notification employed the same expression, “in any State-aided University or Government-aided College”, to indicate that the employment must be in a university or a college receiving State aid. Without appreciating the text of the Notification and also the context in which the expression used, the State and the University have wrongly insisted that the appellant must have had the teaching experience of 10 years from a university or a college within the State of West Bengal”, it said. “To insist on past teaching experience of 10 years within the State of West Bengal for extension of service, particularly when the employee has already worked for fourteen years is arbitrary and illegal”, it added.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that there was no material to show how an employee who had already served the university for fourteen years will be better qualified for extension of service only if his or her past experience of teaching was only in State of West Bengal. “It is a classic case of a suspect classification intended to sub-serve only parochial interests and nothing more. To insist on such a requirement for extension of date of retirement is totally unjustified”, it mentioned.

The Bench held, “We have already examined and concluded that the text, the context, the purpose as well as the object of providing, “continuous teaching experience of 10 years in any university” as a condition in the Notification dated 24.02.2021 is not at all to exclude such experience from universities or colleges outside the State of West Bengal.The Notification dated 28.06.2023 denying the benefit of the Notification dated 24.02.2021 is set-aside by declaring that the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of Notification dated 24.02.2021.”

Thus, giving the benefit of the 2021 Notification, the Bench held that the appellant would be entitled to costs quantified at Rs 50,000.

Cause Title: Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar v. The State of West Bengal Service & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 910)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, AOR Shashank Shekhar

Respondent: Senior Advocates Jaideep Gupta, Krishnan Venugopal, AOR Kunal Chatterji, Advocates Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Varij Nayan Mishra, AOR Siddhartha Chowdhury, Advocates Snehasish Mukherjee, Piyush Malik

Click here to read/download Judgment