Summary and Analysis of Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar Vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

1. Heading

State Cannot Discriminate Based on Geographic Location of Teaching Experience for Retirement Benefits

2. Citation

• Case Name: Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

• Citation: 2025 INSC 910 (Reportable)

• Civil Appeal No.: Arising from SLP(C) Diary No. 11923 of 2024

• Judgment Date: July 30, 2025

3. Subject

The Supreme Court struck down West Bengal’s exclusionary interpretation of a retirement age extension policy, holding that requiring 10 years of teaching experience only within West Bengal for enhanced retirement benefits (60→65 years) is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

4. Key Legal Framework

Law/ProvisionRole in CaseConstitution of India:• Article 14: Right to equality (violated by geographic discrimination).West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976:• Section 4 (as amended in 2017): Empowers state to fix retirement age for aided universities/colleges.• Section 2(a), (cc), (e): Defines "State-aided University," "Government-aided college," and "State Government."State Notification (24.02.2021):• Extended retirement age to 65 for non-teaching staff with *"10+ years teaching experience in any State-aided University or College."*Precedents:• J.S. Rukmani v. Govt. of T.N. (1984 Supp SCC 650): Barred discrimination based on state boundaries.• Harshendra Choubisa v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 6 SCC 393): Struck down domicile-based job benefits.Bench: 2-Judge Bench (Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra).

5. Step-by-Step Explanation of the Judgment:

Background

• Appellant: Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar, served as:
  Teacher in Assam (1991–2007, state-aided college).
  Senior Secretary at Burdwan University, West Bengal (2007–2023).

• State Policy: West Bengal’s 2021 Notification extended retirement age to 65 for non-teaching staff with *"10+ years teaching experience in any State-aided University or College."*

• Dispute: State denied the appellant the benefit, claiming his 16-year Assam experience did not count as "any" meant only within West Bengal.

High Court’s Ruling

• Single Judge (Calcutta HC): "Any" includes universities anywhere in India. Appellant entitled to retire at 65.

• Division Bench (Calcutta HC): Reversed, holding "any" must align with the 1976 Act’s definitions (limiting scope to West Bengal only).

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Text & Purpose of the 2021 Notification:
   The word "any" in "any State-aided University or College" is geographically neutral.
   Objective: To extend retirement benefits to experienced staff – not to exclude those with valid out-of-state experience.

2. Irrelevance of Geographic Classification:
   Excluding experience from other states (e.g., Assam) has no rational nexus with the goal of retaining skilled employees.
   The appellant served 14 years in West Bengal; rejecting his prior 16-year Assam experience was illogical and unjust.

3. Violation of Article 14:
   Distinguishing between employees based on where they gained experience is arbitrary and discriminatory.
   Precedent: Harshendra Choubisa – States cannot impose parochial conditions (e.g., domicile) for public employment benefits.

4. Flawed Reliance on the 1976 Act:
   While the Act defines "State-aided University" as one constituted by West Bengal law, this cannot override the Notification’s plain language.
   Context Matters: Definitions apply only if the context permits (Section 2: "unless context otherwise requires"). Here, context supported a pan-India interpretation.

5. State’s Burden Not Discharged:
   The State failed to prove why teaching experience outside West Bengal is irrelevant for retirement benefits.
   No evidence showed that only local experience enhances job performance.

Verdict

• Allowed the appeal.

• Appellant entitled to retire at 65 years with full benefits.

• Costs of ₹50,000 imposed on the State/University.

6. Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed the Division Bench’s order and restored the Single Judge’s ruling, declaring:

"Teaching experience from any state-aided university/college in India qualifies for retirement benefits in West Bengal. Geographic exclusion is unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14."

Key Impact: The judgment prevents parochialism in public employment, upholding national integration and equality. States must ensure policies align with constitutional fraternity and fairness.