Supreme Court allows retirement‑age benefit for aided university staff irrespective of prior service outside West Bengal

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra heard an appeal by Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar challenging a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which had upheld the State and University’s view that a Government Notification dated 24.02.2021 increasing the retirement age from 60 to 65 applied only to employees who had ten years’ continuous teaching experience in universities or colleges situated within West Bengal. The appeal concerned whether the phrase “any State‑aided University or College” in the Notification was confined by statutory definitions introduced by the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Amendment Act, 2017.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench order and directed that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the Notification dated 24.02.2021. The Court held that the Notification’s intent was not to exclude teaching experience acquired outside West Bengal and that confining the benefit to past service within the State amounted to an “artificial classification” lacking nexus and therefore violative of equality. The Court observed that such executive measures risk being “parochial, potentially undermining our resolve of fraternity.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The Notification dated 24.02.2021 simply incorporates the expression ‘in any State-aided University or Government-aided College’ as in Section 4, conveying the context of employment in an aided institution. 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 Notification itself provides that enhanced age of retirement was granted to teachers of universities and colleges and now a policy decision is taken to extend the same benefit to non-teaching staff such as Registrars and Deputy Registrars, Controllers and Deputy Controllers of Examinations, Inspectors and Deputy Inspectors of colleges apart from Dean of Student’s Welfare and Secretary Council of PG and UG Studies. While granting such benefits, the Notification prescribes a condition of teaching experience of 10 years. 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.”

Background The appellant joined Cachar College, Silchar (Assam) in 1991 and, after provincialisation, taught there for 16 years before securing appointment at the University of Burdwan in 2007. He continued in regular service, earned promotion, and by 2021 had rendered well over a decade of service. The State issued the Notification on 24.02.2021 enhancing retirement age to 65 for specified university and college posts subject to a minimum of ten years’ continuous teaching “in any State‑aided University or College.” When the appellant sought fixation of retirement at 65, the University held that his prior service in Assam did not qualify because the 2017 amendments defined “State‑aided University,” “Government‑aided college” and “State Government” as referring to institutions and the Government of West Bengal. A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowed the appellant’s writ petition, but a Division Bench reversed, reading the Notification in the light of the amended Act and confining the qualifying experience to institutions aided by the Government of West Bengal.

The Supreme Court analysed Section 4 of the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 (as amended), the 24.02.2021 Notification and relevant precedents. The Court held that statutory definitions must be read in context and that the Notification’s language and objective aimed to distinguish aided institutions from unaided ones, not to impose a territorial limitation on past teaching experience. The Court relied on earlier decisions addressing arbitrary classifications and equality (including J.S. Rukmani and Harshendra Choubisa) and concluded that isolating applicants who had taught outside West Bengal served no intelligible differentia or nexus to the object of extending retirement benefits. The impugned Division Bench order dated 13.12.2023 was set aside, the Notification dated 28.06.2023 denying the appellant benefit was quashed, the appellant was declared entitled to benefit of the 24.02.2021 Notification and costs were fixed at Rs. 50,000. The Court observed that it was unnecessary for the appellant to separately challenge the 2017 amendments in order to obtain relief.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 910 (SLP (C) Diary No. 11923 of 2024) Case Title: Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar v. The State of West Bengal Service & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Senior Counsel (for State of West Bengal); Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Senior Counsel (for University of Burdwan)