Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 910
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO(S). OF 2025
SLP (C) DIARY NO. 11923 OF 2024
SUBHA PRASAD NANDI MAJUMDAR ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL SERVICE
& ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
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 the-
10-year continuous teaching condition in a university situated in
West Bengal. Despite the Notification’s reference to ‘any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
university’, the respondents argue that ‘any’ should be interpreted
Date: 2025.07.30
17:47:14 IST
Reason:
1
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
2
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
3
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 squarely covered by
the Memorandum, and that he will only now retire on attaining the
age of 65 years. It was held that the word “any” used before the
phrase “State-aided university” was wide enough to include
teaching experience in an aided university outside of West Bengal.
It was held that if the stand of the University and the State
Government was accepted, it will amount to adding the phrase “in
4
West Bengal” after the phrase “in any State aided University or
College” and supplying words to the Memorandum would be going
beyond the bounds of judicial review. Impugning the order of the
Single Judge, the State Government as well as the University filed
separate writ appeals.
8. Impugned Order: By way of the impugned common order,
the Division Bench allowed the appeals and set-aside the judgment
of the Single Judge. The Division Bench was of the view that the
Memorandum has to be read in light of the parent statute, namely,
the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976.
The Bench observed that the said Act was amended on
17.03.2017, and expressions ‘ Government-aided college ’, ‘ State-
aided University ’ and more importantly ‘ State Government ’ were
defined to include only the Government of West Bengal. Taken
collectively, the Division Bench says, a Court can come to the
conclusion that the requirement of minimum 10 years of
continuous teaching experience must be from universities or
colleges aided by the State of West Bengal . Differing from the
conclusions reached by the Single Judge, the Division Bench held
that extending benefit of the Memorandum to experience acquired
outside
through universities or colleges of West Bengal will amount
5
to supplying words to the Memorandum. It was reasoned that the
word ‘any’ cannot be expanded, and the Memorandum must be
understood in light of the statute under which it was issued, and
the statutory provisions must be interpreted on the basis of the
definition clauses introduced by the 2017 amendment to the 1976
Act.
9. The appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by
the Division Bench.
10. We heard Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned senior counsel on
behalf of the appellant and Mr. Jaideep Gupta and Mr. Krishnan
Venugopal, learned senior counsels for the State of West Bengal
and University of Burdwan, respectively.
11. Before drawing our conclusions on the submission at the bar,
it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act, Rules
and the Notification. Section 4 of the 1976 Act, as it stood prior to
its amendment provides as follows:
“Section 4. : Every teacher of a
Retirement of Teachers
university or any college affiliated to such university who is in
receipt of pay in the revised scale shall retire from service on
attaining the age of sixty years.”
12. The said provision was amended in the year 2017 through
the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Amendment
Act, 2017. After the amendment the said provision is as under:
6
“ Section 4. Retirement of Teachers : Every Full-time regular
teacher, Principal and such other regular employees, who are
in receipt of the State Government's notified scale of pay and
holding a substantive post in any State-aided University or
Government-aided college shall retire from service on attaining
such age as may be determined and notified in the official
Gazette by the State Government from time to time. ”
13. Along with the changes brought about in Section 4, the 1976
Government Aided
amendment also defined the expressions ‘
College ’, ‘ State Government ’ and ‘ State Aided University ’. The
definitions introduced through Section 2 are as follows:
“ Section 2 : In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires —
[…]
(a) "Government-aided college" means a college receiving
periodical pay packet from the State Government on account of
salary and allowances of the teachers and other academic staff
including the non-teaching employees of the college;
[…]
(cc) "State Government" means the Government of West Bengal
in the Higher Education, Science and Technology and
Biotechnology Department; ';
[…]
(e) "State-aided University" means a University constituted and
incorporated by a State Act and receiving regular grants from
the State Government.'
[…]”
14. Returning to the dispute under consideration, one fact which
is glaring is that the appellant was selected to the post of Secretary,
Faculty Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Science at the
respondent university in the year 2007 on the basis of the
qualifications that he possessed. The qualification inter alia
7
included the service that he has rendered in Cachar College,
Silchar in Assam. The said qualification as well as experience
obtained by the appellant from the State of Assam did not operate
against him at any point of time in his service from 2007 onwards.
In fact, the appellant was promoted to the post of Senior Secretary,
Faculty Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Science. For the first
time when the appellant sought the benefit of Notification dated
24.02.2021, the respondents took the stand that the appellant did
not have the qualification of having continuously served for 10
years in the State Aided University or College. Before considering
the rival submission on the Notification and the inconsistent
interpretations adopted by the Single and the Division Benches of
the High Court, it is necessary to reproduce the Notification dated
24.02.2021:
“Date: 24.02.2021
NOTIFICATION
Consequent upon enhancement of the retirement age of the
State-aided University teachers and Govt./Govt. aided College
teachers up to 65 years, the matter regarding enhancement of
the retirement age of the State-aided University Registrars,
Controller of Examinations, Inspector of Colleges and Dean of
Student’s Welfare, Deputy Registrar, Deputy Controller of
Examinations, Deputy Inspector of Colleges and Secretary,
Council of PG & UG Studies and College Council of the State
aided Universities with teaching background/experience in any
State-aided University or College, was under consideration of
the State Govt. from sometime past.
After careful consideration of the matter, the Governor is
pleased to enhance the retirement age of the Registrar,
Controller of Examinations, Inspector of Colleges and Dean of
8
Student’s Welfare, Deputy Registrar, Deputy Controller of
Examinations, Deputy Inspector of Colleges and Secretary,
Council of PG & UG Studies and College Council of the State
aided Universities having continuous teaching
background/experience of minimum 10 years in any State-
aided University or College, up to Sixty five (65) years with
effect from the date of issuance of this notification, for smooth
running of the academic and administrative activities, in terms
of Section 4 of the West Bengal Universities (Control of
Expenditure) Act, 1976 as amended from time to time.”
15. The university has taken the stand that the Notification
requires to be interpreted by taking into account the statute that
governs the field. Referring to Section 4 of the Act, Mr. Gupta has
submitted that the Notification must be understood in terms of
Section 4, as amended in 1976 where the relevant terms are
defined under Section 2 (a), (cc) and (e). Taking the same stand as
that of the Division Bench of the High Court, it is submitted that
requirement of continuous teaching background/experience of
minimum 10 years must be only from West Bengal State-aided
University or College.
16. We do not agree. The intendment of Section 4, even as it stood
before its amendment in 2017 was to provide that employees of a
university or any college affiliated to such university shall retire
from service on attaining the age of 60 years, subject to the
condition that they are in receipt of pay in the revised scales . The
important part of this provision is that the teacher must be
9
receiving scales of pay. In other words, the emphasis is on regular
employment. The same principle is reiterated with further
conditions even when Section 4 was amended in 2017. As per the
amended provision, a teacher covered thereunder must be, i) a
regular employee, ii) receiving notified scales of pay, and must be
iii) holding a substantive post. The purpose of using the phrase “ in
any State-aided University or Government-aided College ” is only to
denote that the employer, being a University or College must be an
aided institution as against institutions which do not receive aid.
Once an employee satisfies these conditions, the statutory
provision enables the State Government to notify the date of
retirement.
17. There is no doubt about the fact that the appellant was a
regular employee, having joined the university way back in 2007
and continued in service uninterruptedly till 2021, by which time
he had also gained promotion to the post of Sr. Secretary.
18. The Notification dated 24.02.2021 simply incorporates the
expression “ in any State-aided University or Government-aided
College ” as in Section 4, conveying the context of employment in
an aided institution. The purpose of the Notification is not to
exclude those who had acquired the 10 years of teaching
10
experience from universities or colleges outside West Bengal. The
Notification itself provides that enhanced age of retirement was
granted to teachers of universities and colleges and now a policy
decision is taken to extend the same benefit to non-teaching staff
such as Registrars and Deputy Registrars, Controllers and Deputy
Controllers of Examinations, Inspectors and Deputy Inspectors of
colleges apart from Dean of Student’s Welfare and Secretary
Council of PG and UG Studies. While granting such benefits, the
Notification prescribes a condition of teaching experience of 10
years. While prescribing the said condition of 10 years, the
Notification employed the same expression, “ in any State-aided
University or Government-aided College ”, to indicate that the
employment must be in a university or a college receiving State-
aid. Without appreciating the text of the Notification and also the
context in which the expression used, the State and the University
have wrongly insisted that the appellant must have had the
teaching experience of 10 years from a university or a college
within the State of West Bengal .
19. In any event, excluding those who had teaching experience
from a university or a college outside the State of West Bengal for
the purpose of granting the benefit of extended date of retirement
11
does not stand to reason. By virtue of the Notification, the benefit
of extended date of retirement given to teachers is now extended to
non-teaching employees, for whom teaching experience may in fact
not be relevant. Even assuming that such experience has some
bearing on the performance of their duties during the extendable
period of service, there is no purpose or object in confining such
experience only through teaching in university or college in West
Bengal.
20. Extension of the retirement date, dependent on past
experience of teaching in a university or a college located in West
Bengal alone has no object to subserve and as such classification
of employers into those who have acquired teaching experience in
West Bengal and those who acquired such experience outside West
Bengal is artificial, discriminatory and arbitrary. The stand taken
by the state and the university is illegal and violative of the equality
norm as enunciated by this Court.
21. To insist on past teaching experience of 10 years within the
State of West Bengal for extension of service, particularly when the
employee has already worked for fourteen years is arbitrary and
illegal.
12
1
22. Under similar circumstances in J.S. Rukmani v. Govt. of T.N. ,
this Court has held:
“[…] If that be so, then it is difficult to see how the widow of a
government servant who served the former State of Madras in
the same manner and who retired before the reorganisation of
the States should not be entitled to family pension under the
notification dated May 26, 1979 merely because the place
where her husband was serving at the date of superannuation
subsequently came to form part of the territories of a State other
than the State of Tamil Nadu as a result of the reorganisation
of the States. The object of the notification dated May 26, 1979
does not warrant any such distinction to be made between the
widows of one class of government servants and the widows of
another class merely on the basis of the place where the
government servant last served at the time of superannuation,
although in both cases the government servant served the same
State, namely, the former State of Madras and superannuated
before the reorganisation of the States … ”
(emphasis supplied)
23. Equally relevant are the observations of this Court in
2
Harshendra Choubisa v. State of Rajasthan . The facts therein were
that the State held an examination for the recruitment to the post
of Gram Sewak-cum-Paden Sachiv. The Notification of recruitment
awarded extra marks to applicants coming from a particular
district (weightage on the basis of place of residence). This Court
struck down the condition down and held as under:
“ 10. The two considerations pleaded by the State do not at all
appeal to us as they are based on wrong factual assumptions
or sweeping generalizations which have a tendency to
introduce artificial classification without in any way advancing
1
1984 Supp SCC 650.
2
(2002) 6 SCC 393.
13
the avowed objective. We have already rejected such
contentions in the judgment just now delivered in relation to the
appointment of primary school teachers. As it is contended that
Gram Sewaks-cum-Secretaries of Panchayats are concerned
with local self-governance and therefore different
considerations would apply vis-à-vis their appointments, we
have thought it fit to refer to and deal with this contention
separately in these appeals, though, we are relieved of the need
for detailed discussion in view of our judgment in the teachers'
batch of appeals.
[…]
12. The second ground urged by the State is equally irrelevant
and untenable. Most of the reasons given by us in the judgment
just delivered in teachers' cases will hold good to reject this
plea. No factual details nor material has been placed before us
to substantiate that the spoken language and dialect varies
from district to district. It will not be reasonable to assume that
an educated person belonging to a contiguous district or
districts will not be able to effectively communicate with the
people of the district in which he is appointed or that he would
be unfamiliar with the living conditions and culture of that
district. He cannot be regarded as an alien in a district other
than his native district. If any classification has to be done in
this regard, it should be based on a scientific study but not on
some broad generalization. If any particular region or area has
some peculiar socio-cultural or linguistic features warranting a
differential treatment for the purpose of deploying personnel
therein, that could only be done after conducting a survey and
identifying such regions or districts. That is the minimum which
needs to be done. There is no factual nor rational basis to treat
each district as a separate unit for the purpose of offering public
employment. Above all, it is wrong to assume that the
candidates belonging to rural areas will be better suited to
serve those areas than the candidates living in nearby towns.
The criterion of merit cannot be allowed to be diluted by taking
resort to such artificial differentiation and irrelevant
assumptions. On the material placed before us, we have no
hesitation in holding that the addition of bonus marks to the
applicants belonging to the same district and the rural areas of
that district would amount to discrimination which falls foul of
Articles 14 and 16. ”
24. Returning to the facts of the present appeals, there is
evidently no material to show how an employee who has already
served the university for fourteen years will be better qualified for
14
extension of service only if his or her past experience of teaching
is only in State of West Bengal . The minimum that the State or the
University needs to prove is to place on record the material that
would demonstrate that non-teaching posts, with respect to which
the state has decided to extend the facility of extended date of
retirement, somehow require experience gained through teaching
in West Bengal and this would also require demonstrating the
distinctive and unique skill obtained through teaching in the State
of West Bengal alone. Further, it is also necessary to demonstrate
the nexus that the experience of teaching in the State of West
Bengal has to the extended period of service . There is absolutely no
material to this effect. We see nothing more than an artificial
classification. It is a classic case of a suspect classification
intended to sub-serve only parochial interests and nothing more.
To insist on such a requirement for extension of date of retirement
is totally unjustified.
25. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal appearing on behalf of the
university has submitted that the appellant has not challenged the
validity of the amendments made to Section 2 introducing sub-
clauses (a), (cc) and (e) defining the expressions used in Section 4.
He submitted that it is not sufficient to challenge just the
15
Notification dated 28.06.2023 retiring the appellant on completion
of 60 years and that he should have challenged the Notification
dated 24.02.2021 as well as the amended Act 2017 substituting
Section 4 and introducing Sections 2(a), (cc) and (e). For this
purpose, he relied on the decision of this Court in Onkarlal Nandlal
3
v. State of Rajasthan , holding that a subordinate legislation must
bear the same meaning as that of the parent Act.
26. We are of the opinion that it is not necessary for the appellant
to challenge the amended provisions as our conclusions are based
on the plain and simple interpretation of the Notification dated
24.02.2021 as well as Section 4 of the Act. Further, it is well-
established that statutory definitions must be interpreted in their
context. In fact, Section 2 itself provides that “In the Act, unless the
context otherwise requires….” . In Vanguard Fire and General
4
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Fraser and Ross , this Court held as follows:
“ 6. […] It is well settled that all statutory definitions or
abbreviations must be read subject to the qualification
variously expressed in the definition clauses which created
them and it may be that even where the definition is exhaustive
inasmuch as the word defined is said to mean a certain thing,
it is possible for the word to have a somewhat different meaning
in different sections of the Act depending upon the subject or
the context. That is why all definitions in statutes generally
begin with the qualifying words similar to the words used in the
present case, namely, unless there is anything repugnant in the
3
(1985) 4 SCC 404.
4
(1960) SCC OnLine SC 49.
16
subject or context. Therefore in finding out the meaning of the
word “insurer” in various sections of the Act, the meaning to be
ordinarily given to it is that given in the definition clause. But
this is not inflexible and there may be sections in the Act where
the meaning may have to be departed from on account of the
subject or context in which the word has been used and that
will be giving effect to the opening sentence in the definition
section, namely, unless there is anything repugnant in the
subject or context. In view of this qualification, the court has not
only to look at the words but also to look at the context, the
collocation and the object of such words relating to such matter
and interpret the meaning intended to be conveyed by the use
of the words under the circumstances. ”
27. 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. Thus, the submission based on definition clauses is
rejected as misplaced.
28. For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeals and set
aside the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2023 passed
by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in MAT 1762 of
2023, CAN 1 of 2023, CAN 2 of 2023 and MAT 1705 of 2023. The
Notification dated 28.06.2023 denying the benefit of the
Notification dated 24.02.2021 is set-aside by declaring that the
17
appellant will be entitled to the benefit of Notification dated
24.02.2021.
29. The appellant will be entitled to costs quantified at Rs.
50,000/-.
………………………………....J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
………………………………....J.
[MANOJ MISRA]
NEW DELHI;
JULY 30, 2025
18
2025 INSC 910
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO(S). OF 2025
SLP (C) DIARY NO. 11923 OF 2024
SUBHA PRASAD NANDI MAJUMDAR ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL SERVICE
& ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
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 the-
10-year continuous teaching condition in a university situated in
West Bengal. Despite the Notification’s reference to ‘any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
university’, the respondents argue that ‘any’ should be interpreted
Date: 2025.07.30
17:47:14 IST
Reason:
1
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
2
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
3
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 squarely covered by
the Memorandum, and that he will only now retire on attaining the
age of 65 years. It was held that the word “any” used before the
phrase “State-aided university” was wide enough to include
teaching experience in an aided university outside of West Bengal.
It was held that if the stand of the University and the State
Government was accepted, it will amount to adding the phrase “in
4
West Bengal” after the phrase “in any State aided University or
College” and supplying words to the Memorandum would be going
beyond the bounds of judicial review. Impugning the order of the
Single Judge, the State Government as well as the University filed
separate writ appeals.
8. Impugned Order: By way of the impugned common order,
the Division Bench allowed the appeals and set-aside the judgment
of the Single Judge. The Division Bench was of the view that the
Memorandum has to be read in light of the parent statute, namely,
the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976.
The Bench observed that the said Act was amended on
17.03.2017, and expressions ‘ Government-aided college ’, ‘ State-
aided University ’ and more importantly ‘ State Government ’ were
defined to include only the Government of West Bengal. Taken
collectively, the Division Bench says, a Court can come to the
conclusion that the requirement of minimum 10 years of
continuous teaching experience must be from universities or
colleges aided by the State of West Bengal . Differing from the
conclusions reached by the Single Judge, the Division Bench held
that extending benefit of the Memorandum to experience acquired
outside
through universities or colleges of West Bengal will amount
5
to supplying words to the Memorandum. It was reasoned that the
word ‘any’ cannot be expanded, and the Memorandum must be
understood in light of the statute under which it was issued, and
the statutory provisions must be interpreted on the basis of the
definition clauses introduced by the 2017 amendment to the 1976
Act.
9. The appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by
the Division Bench.
10. We heard Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned senior counsel on
behalf of the appellant and Mr. Jaideep Gupta and Mr. Krishnan
Venugopal, learned senior counsels for the State of West Bengal
and University of Burdwan, respectively.
11. Before drawing our conclusions on the submission at the bar,
it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act, Rules
and the Notification. Section 4 of the 1976 Act, as it stood prior to
its amendment provides as follows:
“Section 4. : Every teacher of a
Retirement of Teachers
university or any college affiliated to such university who is in
receipt of pay in the revised scale shall retire from service on
attaining the age of sixty years.”
12. The said provision was amended in the year 2017 through
the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Amendment
Act, 2017. After the amendment the said provision is as under:
6
“ Section 4. Retirement of Teachers : Every Full-time regular
teacher, Principal and such other regular employees, who are
in receipt of the State Government's notified scale of pay and
holding a substantive post in any State-aided University or
Government-aided college shall retire from service on attaining
such age as may be determined and notified in the official
Gazette by the State Government from time to time. ”
13. Along with the changes brought about in Section 4, the 1976
Government Aided
amendment also defined the expressions ‘
College ’, ‘ State Government ’ and ‘ State Aided University ’. The
definitions introduced through Section 2 are as follows:
“ Section 2 : In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires —
[…]
(a) "Government-aided college" means a college receiving
periodical pay packet from the State Government on account of
salary and allowances of the teachers and other academic staff
including the non-teaching employees of the college;
[…]
(cc) "State Government" means the Government of West Bengal
in the Higher Education, Science and Technology and
Biotechnology Department; ';
[…]
(e) "State-aided University" means a University constituted and
incorporated by a State Act and receiving regular grants from
the State Government.'
[…]”
14. Returning to the dispute under consideration, one fact which
is glaring is that the appellant was selected to the post of Secretary,
Faculty Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Science at the
respondent university in the year 2007 on the basis of the
qualifications that he possessed. The qualification inter alia
7
included the service that he has rendered in Cachar College,
Silchar in Assam. The said qualification as well as experience
obtained by the appellant from the State of Assam did not operate
against him at any point of time in his service from 2007 onwards.
In fact, the appellant was promoted to the post of Senior Secretary,
Faculty Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Science. For the first
time when the appellant sought the benefit of Notification dated
24.02.2021, the respondents took the stand that the appellant did
not have the qualification of having continuously served for 10
years in the State Aided University or College. Before considering
the rival submission on the Notification and the inconsistent
interpretations adopted by the Single and the Division Benches of
the High Court, it is necessary to reproduce the Notification dated
24.02.2021:
“Date: 24.02.2021
NOTIFICATION
Consequent upon enhancement of the retirement age of the
State-aided University teachers and Govt./Govt. aided College
teachers up to 65 years, the matter regarding enhancement of
the retirement age of the State-aided University Registrars,
Controller of Examinations, Inspector of Colleges and Dean of
Student’s Welfare, Deputy Registrar, Deputy Controller of
Examinations, Deputy Inspector of Colleges and Secretary,
Council of PG & UG Studies and College Council of the State
aided Universities with teaching background/experience in any
State-aided University or College, was under consideration of
the State Govt. from sometime past.
After careful consideration of the matter, the Governor is
pleased to enhance the retirement age of the Registrar,
Controller of Examinations, Inspector of Colleges and Dean of
8
Student’s Welfare, Deputy Registrar, Deputy Controller of
Examinations, Deputy Inspector of Colleges and Secretary,
Council of PG & UG Studies and College Council of the State
aided Universities having continuous teaching
background/experience of minimum 10 years in any State-
aided University or College, up to Sixty five (65) years with
effect from the date of issuance of this notification, for smooth
running of the academic and administrative activities, in terms
of Section 4 of the West Bengal Universities (Control of
Expenditure) Act, 1976 as amended from time to time.”
15. The university has taken the stand that the Notification
requires to be interpreted by taking into account the statute that
governs the field. Referring to Section 4 of the Act, Mr. Gupta has
submitted that the Notification must be understood in terms of
Section 4, as amended in 1976 where the relevant terms are
defined under Section 2 (a), (cc) and (e). Taking the same stand as
that of the Division Bench of the High Court, it is submitted that
requirement of continuous teaching background/experience of
minimum 10 years must be only from West Bengal State-aided
University or College.
16. We do not agree. The intendment of Section 4, even as it stood
before its amendment in 2017 was to provide that employees of a
university or any college affiliated to such university shall retire
from service on attaining the age of 60 years, subject to the
condition that they are in receipt of pay in the revised scales . The
important part of this provision is that the teacher must be
9
receiving scales of pay. In other words, the emphasis is on regular
employment. The same principle is reiterated with further
conditions even when Section 4 was amended in 2017. As per the
amended provision, a teacher covered thereunder must be, i) a
regular employee, ii) receiving notified scales of pay, and must be
iii) holding a substantive post. The purpose of using the phrase “ in
any State-aided University or Government-aided College ” is only to
denote that the employer, being a University or College must be an
aided institution as against institutions which do not receive aid.
Once an employee satisfies these conditions, the statutory
provision enables the State Government to notify the date of
retirement.
17. There is no doubt about the fact that the appellant was a
regular employee, having joined the university way back in 2007
and continued in service uninterruptedly till 2021, by which time
he had also gained promotion to the post of Sr. Secretary.
18. The Notification dated 24.02.2021 simply incorporates the
expression “ in any State-aided University or Government-aided
College ” as in Section 4, conveying the context of employment in
an aided institution. The purpose of the Notification is not to
exclude those who had acquired the 10 years of teaching
10
experience from universities or colleges outside West Bengal. The
Notification itself provides that enhanced age of retirement was
granted to teachers of universities and colleges and now a policy
decision is taken to extend the same benefit to non-teaching staff
such as Registrars and Deputy Registrars, Controllers and Deputy
Controllers of Examinations, Inspectors and Deputy Inspectors of
colleges apart from Dean of Student’s Welfare and Secretary
Council of PG and UG Studies. While granting such benefits, the
Notification prescribes a condition of teaching experience of 10
years. While prescribing the said condition of 10 years, the
Notification employed the same expression, “ in any State-aided
University or Government-aided College ”, to indicate that the
employment must be in a university or a college receiving State-
aid. Without appreciating the text of the Notification and also the
context in which the expression used, the State and the University
have wrongly insisted that the appellant must have had the
teaching experience of 10 years from a university or a college
within the State of West Bengal .
19. In any event, excluding those who had teaching experience
from a university or a college outside the State of West Bengal for
the purpose of granting the benefit of extended date of retirement
11
does not stand to reason. By virtue of the Notification, the benefit
of extended date of retirement given to teachers is now extended to
non-teaching employees, for whom teaching experience may in fact
not be relevant. Even assuming that such experience has some
bearing on the performance of their duties during the extendable
period of service, there is no purpose or object in confining such
experience only through teaching in university or college in West
Bengal.
20. Extension of the retirement date, dependent on past
experience of teaching in a university or a college located in West
Bengal alone has no object to subserve and as such classification
of employers into those who have acquired teaching experience in
West Bengal and those who acquired such experience outside West
Bengal is artificial, discriminatory and arbitrary. The stand taken
by the state and the university is illegal and violative of the equality
norm as enunciated by this Court.
21. To insist on past teaching experience of 10 years within the
State of West Bengal for extension of service, particularly when the
employee has already worked for fourteen years is arbitrary and
illegal.
12
1
22. Under similar circumstances in J.S. Rukmani v. Govt. of T.N. ,
this Court has held:
“[…] If that be so, then it is difficult to see how the widow of a
government servant who served the former State of Madras in
the same manner and who retired before the reorganisation of
the States should not be entitled to family pension under the
notification dated May 26, 1979 merely because the place
where her husband was serving at the date of superannuation
subsequently came to form part of the territories of a State other
than the State of Tamil Nadu as a result of the reorganisation
of the States. The object of the notification dated May 26, 1979
does not warrant any such distinction to be made between the
widows of one class of government servants and the widows of
another class merely on the basis of the place where the
government servant last served at the time of superannuation,
although in both cases the government servant served the same
State, namely, the former State of Madras and superannuated
before the reorganisation of the States … ”
(emphasis supplied)
23. Equally relevant are the observations of this Court in
2
Harshendra Choubisa v. State of Rajasthan . The facts therein were
that the State held an examination for the recruitment to the post
of Gram Sewak-cum-Paden Sachiv. The Notification of recruitment
awarded extra marks to applicants coming from a particular
district (weightage on the basis of place of residence). This Court
struck down the condition down and held as under:
“ 10. The two considerations pleaded by the State do not at all
appeal to us as they are based on wrong factual assumptions
or sweeping generalizations which have a tendency to
introduce artificial classification without in any way advancing
1
1984 Supp SCC 650.
2
(2002) 6 SCC 393.
13
the avowed objective. We have already rejected such
contentions in the judgment just now delivered in relation to the
appointment of primary school teachers. As it is contended that
Gram Sewaks-cum-Secretaries of Panchayats are concerned
with local self-governance and therefore different
considerations would apply vis-à-vis their appointments, we
have thought it fit to refer to and deal with this contention
separately in these appeals, though, we are relieved of the need
for detailed discussion in view of our judgment in the teachers'
batch of appeals.
[…]
12. The second ground urged by the State is equally irrelevant
and untenable. Most of the reasons given by us in the judgment
just delivered in teachers' cases will hold good to reject this
plea. No factual details nor material has been placed before us
to substantiate that the spoken language and dialect varies
from district to district. It will not be reasonable to assume that
an educated person belonging to a contiguous district or
districts will not be able to effectively communicate with the
people of the district in which he is appointed or that he would
be unfamiliar with the living conditions and culture of that
district. He cannot be regarded as an alien in a district other
than his native district. If any classification has to be done in
this regard, it should be based on a scientific study but not on
some broad generalization. If any particular region or area has
some peculiar socio-cultural or linguistic features warranting a
differential treatment for the purpose of deploying personnel
therein, that could only be done after conducting a survey and
identifying such regions or districts. That is the minimum which
needs to be done. There is no factual nor rational basis to treat
each district as a separate unit for the purpose of offering public
employment. Above all, it is wrong to assume that the
candidates belonging to rural areas will be better suited to
serve those areas than the candidates living in nearby towns.
The criterion of merit cannot be allowed to be diluted by taking
resort to such artificial differentiation and irrelevant
assumptions. On the material placed before us, we have no
hesitation in holding that the addition of bonus marks to the
applicants belonging to the same district and the rural areas of
that district would amount to discrimination which falls foul of
Articles 14 and 16. ”
24. Returning to the facts of the present appeals, there is
evidently no material to show how an employee who has already
served the university for fourteen years will be better qualified for
14
extension of service only if his or her past experience of teaching
is only in State of West Bengal . The minimum that the State or the
University needs to prove is to place on record the material that
would demonstrate that non-teaching posts, with respect to which
the state has decided to extend the facility of extended date of
retirement, somehow require experience gained through teaching
in West Bengal and this would also require demonstrating the
distinctive and unique skill obtained through teaching in the State
of West Bengal alone. Further, it is also necessary to demonstrate
the nexus that the experience of teaching in the State of West
Bengal has to the extended period of service . There is absolutely no
material to this effect. We see nothing more than an artificial
classification. It is a classic case of a suspect classification
intended to sub-serve only parochial interests and nothing more.
To insist on such a requirement for extension of date of retirement
is totally unjustified.
25. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal appearing on behalf of the
university has submitted that the appellant has not challenged the
validity of the amendments made to Section 2 introducing sub-
clauses (a), (cc) and (e) defining the expressions used in Section 4.
He submitted that it is not sufficient to challenge just the
15
Notification dated 28.06.2023 retiring the appellant on completion
of 60 years and that he should have challenged the Notification
dated 24.02.2021 as well as the amended Act 2017 substituting
Section 4 and introducing Sections 2(a), (cc) and (e). For this
purpose, he relied on the decision of this Court in Onkarlal Nandlal
3
v. State of Rajasthan , holding that a subordinate legislation must
bear the same meaning as that of the parent Act.
26. We are of the opinion that it is not necessary for the appellant
to challenge the amended provisions as our conclusions are based
on the plain and simple interpretation of the Notification dated
24.02.2021 as well as Section 4 of the Act. Further, it is well-
established that statutory definitions must be interpreted in their
context. In fact, Section 2 itself provides that “In the Act, unless the
context otherwise requires….” . In Vanguard Fire and General
4
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Fraser and Ross , this Court held as follows:
“ 6. […] It is well settled that all statutory definitions or
abbreviations must be read subject to the qualification
variously expressed in the definition clauses which created
them and it may be that even where the definition is exhaustive
inasmuch as the word defined is said to mean a certain thing,
it is possible for the word to have a somewhat different meaning
in different sections of the Act depending upon the subject or
the context. That is why all definitions in statutes generally
begin with the qualifying words similar to the words used in the
present case, namely, unless there is anything repugnant in the
3
(1985) 4 SCC 404.
4
(1960) SCC OnLine SC 49.
16
subject or context. Therefore in finding out the meaning of the
word “insurer” in various sections of the Act, the meaning to be
ordinarily given to it is that given in the definition clause. But
this is not inflexible and there may be sections in the Act where
the meaning may have to be departed from on account of the
subject or context in which the word has been used and that
will be giving effect to the opening sentence in the definition
section, namely, unless there is anything repugnant in the
subject or context. In view of this qualification, the court has not
only to look at the words but also to look at the context, the
collocation and the object of such words relating to such matter
and interpret the meaning intended to be conveyed by the use
of the words under the circumstances. ”
27. 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. Thus, the submission based on definition clauses is
rejected as misplaced.
28. For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeals and set
aside the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2023 passed
by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in MAT 1762 of
2023, CAN 1 of 2023, CAN 2 of 2023 and MAT 1705 of 2023. The
Notification dated 28.06.2023 denying the benefit of the
Notification dated 24.02.2021 is set-aside by declaring that the
17
appellant will be entitled to the benefit of Notification dated
24.02.2021.
29. The appellant will be entitled to costs quantified at Rs.
50,000/-.
………………………………....J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
………………………………....J.
[MANOJ MISRA]
NEW DELHI;
JULY 30, 2025
18