No to State-Limited Service Rule: SC Slams West Bengal's Policy Denying Retirement Extension
In a strongly worded judgment, the Supreme Court set aside the West Bengal government’s denial of retirement age extension to a university officer, denouncing the decision as arbitrary, parochial, and violative of constitutional principles of equality and fraternity.
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra allowed the appeal filed by Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar, who was denied the benefit of a 2021 State Government notification enhancing the retirement age for certain university officers from 60 to 65 years.
The denial was based on the grounds that he lacked the required 10 years of continuous teaching experience in a State-aided university or college within West Bengal, despite the notification using the phrase “any State-aided university or college.”
The Court rejected the state’s restrictive interpretation, holding that the word “any” must be given its plain meaning and that the intent of the 2021 notification was never to exclude teaching experience acquired outside West Bengal.
“Executive decisions such as these seem minor or simple errors of perception but have far-reaching consequences,” the Court said. “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 Court observed that classifying employees based on whether their teaching experience was obtained inside or outside West Bengal, particularly at the verge of retirement, was an artificial and discriminatory classification that lacked any rational nexus to the purpose of the policy.
Nandi Majumdar had served as a teacher at Cachar College, Silchar (Assam) for 16 years before joining Burdwan University in 2007.
He was promoted to Senior Secretary, Faculty Council for Postgraduate Studies in Science in 2012.
By 2021, he had already completed over 14 years of continuous service in West Bengal.
When the 2021 notification extending the retirement age was issued, he applied for its benefit, but was told he would retire on August 31, 2023, upon attaining 60 years, as he lacked the requisite experience “in a State-aided university or college” within West Bengal.
A single judge of the Calcutta High Court had upheld his claim, stating that the term “any” included universities outside West Bengal. However, a Division Bench set aside that ruling, relying on the definition clauses introduced through a 2017 amendment to the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976. It held that the term “State-aided university” meant only those institutions constituted by a West Bengal Act and receiving regular State grants.
Disagreeing, the Supreme Court held that this interpretation imposed artificial limitations and unjustly excluded candidates like the appellant.
It emphasized that the policy’s real intent was to distinguish between State-aided and private institutions, not to restrict eligibility geographically.
The Court also relied on precedents such as J.S. Rukmani v. State of Tamil Nadu and Harshendra Choubisa v. State of Rajasthan to reiterate that such classifications, based on region or institution, cannot pass constitutional muster under Articles 14 and 16.
“The principle of fraternity never asserts itself,” the Court noted; “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.”
Setting aside the High Court’s Division Bench order dated December 13, 2023, the Top Court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the February 24, 2021 notification. It also directed the State and University to pay him costs of Rs. 50,000.
Case Title: Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar v. State of West Bengal & Ors
Date of Judgment: July 30, 2025
Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra