1. Retirement age extension eligibility — Dispute over whether teaching experience in a state-aided university outside the state satisfies the condition of experience in any state-aided university. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1132
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of West Bengal Service & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 9913-9916 of 2025 Arising Out of SLP (C) No(s). …… of 2025 SLP (C) Diary No. 11923 of 2024
Decided On : 30-07-2025
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): 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.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): 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.
Exclusion of teaching experience from outside the State for retirement age extension violates equality principles and lacks a rational basis.
Headnote:(A) West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 - Amendment of 2017 - Government Notification dated 24.02.2021 regarding retirement age - Requirement for continuous teaching experience in State-aided institutions is discriminatory against teachers with experience from outside West Bengal - Courts must intervene in arbitrary state actions to uphold equality principles. (Paras 16, 21, 28)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a teacher with over fourteen years of service, challenged the interpretation of a government Notification restricting retirement age extension benefits based on state-specific teaching experience. (Paras 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found the interpretation leading to exclusion of experience from outside West Bengal as arbitrary and discriminatory, and ruled in favor of the appellant's entitlement to the retirement age extension benefit. (Para 28)
Issues: Whether the requirement of a minimum of 10 years of teaching experience must be from State-aided universities in West Bengal to qualify for retirement age extension. (Para 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court stated that the Government's interpretation of the Notification was flawed, primarily emphasizing that it did not justly consider the backgrounds of teachers with wider state experience. The interpretation undermined the principles of equality and fraternity. (Paras 20, 28)
Result: Appeals allowed, setting aside the Division Bench's judgment on further appeal. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification dated 24.02.2021.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- The Supreme Court of India held that excluding teaching experience from universities outside West Bengal for the purpose of retirement age extension violates equality principles and lacks a rational basis [judgement_subject].
- The Court ruled that the Government Notification dated 24.02.2021 regarding the extension of retirement age from 60 to 65 years is applicable to teachers with continuous teaching experience in State-aided institutions outside West Bengal [judgement_act_referred].
- The requirement for a minimum of 10 years of teaching experience must be from State-aided universities or colleges, but it cannot be restricted solely to those within the State of West Bengal (!) (!) .
- The Court found the State's interpretation limiting benefits to West Bengal-specific experience to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (!) (!) .
- The appellant, who had over fourteen years of service including experience from Assam, was entitled to the benefit of the Notification and would retire at the age of 65 instead of 60 (!) (!) (!) .
- The Court emphasized that statutory definitions must be interpreted in their context and that the Notification's intent was to distinguish between state-aided and private institutions, not to exclude employees based on the location of their prior teaching experience (!) (!) (!) .
- The appeals were allowed, setting aside the Division Bench's judgment of the Calcutta High Court, and the appellant was awarded costs of Rs. 50,000 (!) (!) .
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the term any state-aided university must be interpreted restrictively based on the parent Act's definition of state government or broadly to include universities in other states. (Para 2 , 8 , 15 , 25 )
3. Classification of employees based on teaching experience within or outside a specific state lacks rational nexus and is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the equality norm. (Para 3 , 14 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 )
4. Statutory definitions are not inflexible and must be interpreted in context; artificial classifications lacking rational nexus to the objective of a notification violate the right to equality. (Para 16 , 20 , 26 , 27 )
5. Appeals allowed — Impugned judgment set aside — Appellant declared entitled to the benefit of the retirement age extension notification. (Para 28 , 29 )
6. Does the phrase any State-aided University in a notification necessarily limit experience to universities within the issuing state?
No. The court held that the term denotes employment in an aided institution generally. Restricting it to a specific state without a rational nexus to the objective is arbitrary and discriminatory. (Para 16 , 18 , 20 )
7. Must statutory definitions always be applied strictly regardless of the context of the subordinate legislation?
No. Statutory definitions are typically qualified by phrases like unless the context otherwise requires. Courts must look at the text, context, and object to determine the intended meaning. (Para 26 , 27 )
8. When does a classification for government benefits violate the equality norm?
A classification is illegal and violative of the equality norm if it is artificial, discriminatory, and lacks a discernible object or rational nexus to the purpose of the benefit. (Para 3 , 20 , 24 )
JUDGMENT :
(Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.)
1. Delay condoned. Leave Granted.
2. The appellant challenges the Division Bench's decision, upholding the University and State's stance that a government Notification dated 24.02.2021 extending the retirement age from 60 to 65 years is inapplicable to him due to non-satisfaction of the10-year continuous teaching condition in a university situated in West Bengal. Despite the Notification’s reference to ‘any university’, the respondents argue that ‘any’ should be interpreted in consonance with the definition clause in the parent Act, limiting ‘university’ to a university constituted by a State Act.
3. 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.
3.1 When such decisions are subjected to strict scrutiny in judicial review, they unfortunately expose themselves as parochial, potentially undermining our resolve of fraternity. Executive decisions such as these seem minor or simple errors of perception but have far reaching consequences. Constitutional courts must be vigilant and identify such decisions, embedded in the nooks and crannies of public administration and set them aside, for they have the potentiality of triggering similar actions by other States and their Instrumentalities. The appellant asserted his right to equality, which claim like that of liberty is easier to address in a court of law. However, the principle of fraternity never asserts itself. It is the duty of the constitutional court to recognise its erosion, even in the bylanes of public administration and to restore the essential ‘We’ to ensure the unity and integrity of the nation.
4. The short facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are as under. The appellant was initially appointed as a member of the teaching staff at Cachar College, Silchar, State of Assam on 23.01.1991. 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 dated 18.06.2007 issued by the Burdwan University, State of West Bengal 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, Faculty Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Science on 26.01.2012.
5. Almost a decade thereafter and at a time when the appellant already rendered over fourteen years of service, the State of West Bengal, issued a Memorandum dated 24.02.2021 increasing the age of retirement from 60 years to 65 years. The Memorandum provided that the benefit of increased age of retirement is extended only to those who had acquired a minimum of 10 years of continuous teaching experience in any State-aided university/college. The appellant made a representation to the Vice Chancellor of the university on 01.02.2023 claiming benefit of the Memorandum and sought fixation of his age of retirement to be on attaining 65 years.
6. The University replied on 28.06.2003, informing that the appellant will retire on 31.08.2023 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’. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a Writ Petition no. WPA 16596 of 2023 before the Calcutta High Court.
7. By his order dated 28.08.2023, the Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that the appellant was squarel
