Supreme Court Quashes Calcutta High Court Order Denying 65 Year Retirement Benefit: Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra Upholds Equality in Service Rules

The Indian Supreme Court has made an important judgment in a case relating to the death of a child Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar vs. The State of West Bengal Service & Ors., a case that determines one of the major concerns of discrimination and artificial classification within the government. The case that focused on the interpretation of a government notification on the retirement age of the university staff is an effective reminder of the constitutional values of equality and fraternity. In its ruling the Court did not only affirm the right of an individual to equal treatment but it also made an active stand against the parochial policies that weaken the integrity of the country.

The case Background

The case pertained to Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar who was appointed as a teacher in the Cachar College, Silchar, Assam, in the year 1991. Under Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005, the college has become provincialized. Majumdar was the first to be appointed to the Secretary, Faculty Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Science position at Burdwan University in West Bengal a 16 year old university in 2007. In 2012, he was promoted to becoming a Senior Secretary. On 24 February 2021, a notification was released by the State of West Bengal followed by which the retirement age of certain employees was increased to 65 years instead of 60 years previously (on the condition that at least they had 10 years of unbroken experience teaching in any State-aided university or college).

Majumdar who was already serving over fourteen years in Burdwan University wanted to take advantage of this notification. But the University refused to grant him the request on the grounds that he lacked the necessary teaching experience in a university or college aided by the State of West Bengal. This prompted Majumdar to petition the Calcutta High Court by way of a writ petition. In an earlier case, a Single Judge had ruled in his favor on the interpretation of the word any in the notification as meaning that the experience did not have to be all within West Bengal. The State and University filed an appeal against this and the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court was overruled by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench took the view that the notification is meant to be read along with parent act, viz., the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976, which restricts the meaning of the phrase, “State-aided University” and that of the phrase, “State Government” only to West Bengal. That case wound up at the Supreme Court.

Analysis of the Notification and intent of the Supreme Court

In making its decision, the Supreme Court took into serious consideration the arguments of the two parties. The Court overruled the reading given to the notification by the Division Bench by adding that the purpose of the notification was not to bar the employees who had experience in universities other than West Bengal. The Court established that the intent of the notification was to distinguish between state-aided and private institutions and making employees fall in certain categories based on the source of their previous teaching experience including distinguishing them at the very end of their careers did not have logical basis or any objective behind it. The Court concluded that the use of the words, in any State-aided University or Government-aided College in connection with the employment was to point out that execution was to be at an aided institution and not necessarily to limit the place where the aided institution might be.

The Court also indicated that, the experience done by Majumdar at Assam was considered by the Burdwan University when recruited in 2007 and also in his upgrading. The sudden shift on the part of the respondents who rose to this new position only when he wanted to enjoy the advantage of the increase in the retirement age was found to be inconsistent and arbitrary. The benefit of an extended retirement age to non-teaching staff like Majumdar which the notification given did allow, and although the condition of 10 years of teaching experience was laid down in the notification, there was no need to restrict this experience to universities or colleges within West Bengal.

The Wider Constitutional Principles which are Involved

Besides the definite understanding of the notification, the Supreme Court concerns the basic constitutional matters involved. By making such executive decision, the Court said that they may appear to be very small, but have profound effects and may be deep rooted in the nooks and crannies of public administration. The Court stated that this is its responsibility to sound an alarm and overturn this kind of decision because it can lead other states to do the same thing and debase the value of fraternity, the unity and integrity of the country. The Court observed that the basis of classification of employees on the basis of their previous experience teaching experience whether in or out West Bengal was artificial, discriminatory and arbitrary and was in violation of the constitutional rule of equality.

The pre-existing rulings supported the decision of the Court. It cited

Harshendra Choubisa v. State of Rajasthan, in which a recruitment notification according extra marks to the applicants belonging to a certain district was struck down. There the Court had found that IF the Court considered these classification in terms of residence or location it is not uncommon to make such classification on the basis of sweeping generalization and that they may weaken the doctrine of merit. In the case of Majumdar as well, the Supreme Court did not detect any material to explain why an employee with teaching experience in West Bengal would be more efficient towards an extension of service and the requirement was said to be a “suspect classification to further only parochial interests”.

Case Final

The appeals were finally set aside and the judgment of the Division Bench was overruled by the Supreme Court with the notification of the University to Majumdar, being quashed. Having ruled that Majumdar was in the right to the benefit of the increased retirement age pursuant to the February 24, 2021 notification, the Court proceeded to answer this question in the affirmative. In the judgment, a cost of Rs. 50,000 was also granted on the side of the appellant conveying a strong message against the unlawful and arbitrary stance of the state and the university. It is an important precedent, and this ruling stands as a reminder of the power of the judiciary to guard the constitutional values, and the ability to make sure that the administration in the country is done in a way that is not unfair, and rational, and is not intimidated by the parochial thought.