Recently the Supreme Court of India on 30^th July,2025 addressed the issue of unfair and narrow interpretation of the government rules of retirement in the case of Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar versus the State of West Bengal Service & Ors.

✖

Factual Background

Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar had worked as a teacher for 16 years in a government college in Assam. In 2007, he joined Burdwan University in West Bengal, where he served for over 14 years. In 2021, the West Bengal government issued a notification raising the retirement age from 60 to 65 years for non-teaching university staff who had at least 10 years of teaching experience in “any State-aided University or College.”

Mr. Majumdar had more than enough teaching experience—over 30 years in total. But the University said he would still retire at 60, arguing that his Assam experience doesn’t count because it was not in West Bengal.

Court Proceedings

The Appellant initially succeeded before a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, who allowed his petition. However, a Division Bench later overturned this decision, stating that granting the benefit of the Memorandum to those with experience from universities or colleges outside West Bengal would amount to adding words that were not originally included. The Bench held that the word “any” could not be interpreted broadly. Dissatisfied with this view, the Appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

Court’s Reasoning

Section 4 of the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 was examined by the Supreme Court. As long as they were receiving the authorised government pay scales, it explained, university or college employees should retire at age 60 even before the law was amended in 2017. Following the 2017 amendment, the rule now stipulates that the employee must hold a permanent (substantial) position, be regularly appointed, and receive the notified salary.
The Court further clarified that the requirement that the individual have worked in an aided institution, not a private, unaided one, was the sole reason for using the phrase “in any State-aided University or Government-aided College.” This was not intended to be restricted to West Bengali institutions alone.

Regarding the 2021 Notification, the Court stated that its intention was not to bar those from outside West Bengal with ten years of teaching experience. In actuality, the announcement extended the benefit of the extended retirement age, which had previously only applied to teachers, to non-teaching employees such as secretaries, registrars, controllers of examination, inspectors, and deans. Therefore, a person’s prior teaching experience from a different state did not automatically disqualify them.

Courts Rulings

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the appellant, while stating that
“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”
Mr Majmudar will now retire at 65, and will be compensated ₹50,000 in lieu of court fees.

Presided by: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Manoj Misra