Supreme Court overturns Calcutta HC order denying retirement extension to a Bengal university teacher over out-of-state teaching experience. Calls state’s classification “arbitrary” and awards Rs 50,000 in costs.
New Delhi: On July 30, the Supreme Court of India set aside a 2023 ruling by the Calcutta High Court that had upheld the West Bengal government’s decision to deny an extension of service to a university employee.
The state had argued that the teacher was not eligible for the increased retirement age because he did not have 10 years of continuous teaching experience within West Bengal.
ALSO READ: Setback for Mamata: Calcutta HC Bars ‘Tainted’ Teachers from Fresh Recruitment
However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected this reasoning and ruled in favour of the teacher, calling the state’s stance arbitrary, discriminatory, and against the constitutional spirit of fraternity.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra. The bench observed that the intention behind the February 2021 government notification—which increased the retirement age for certain university employees from 60 to 65 years—was not to exclude teachers with experience from outside West Bengal.
Instead, the notification was meant to differentiate between employees of state-aided and private institutions.
In a strong remark, the bench said,
“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.”
This classification, according to the Supreme Court, served no meaningful administrative purpose and instead promoted regional bias.
The teacher in question had started his academic career in 1991 at Cachar College in Silchar, Assam. The college was later provincialised under the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005, making it a government college.
After 16 years of service in Assam, he applied for and was appointed to a position at Burdwan University in West Bengal in 2007.
Over the years, he was promoted to Senior Secretary of the Faculty Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Science and continued to serve until 2021.
In 2021, the West Bengal government released a memorandum increasing the retirement age to 65, but added a condition that only those with 10 years of continuous teaching experience in state-aided colleges or universities within West Bengal would benefit.
When the teacher applied for this benefit, the university denied his request, stating that he did not meet the specific condition of having taught in a state-aided institution within West Bengal.
The teacher then approached the Calcutta High Court. A single judge ruled in his favour, holding that he was eligible for the retirement extension.
However, the West Bengal government and the university challenged this decision. The division bench of the High Court reversed the single judge’s ruling and upheld the government’s stand.
The matter finally reached the Supreme Court, which restored the order of the single judge and strongly criticised the decision of the state authorities.
The apex court made several critical observations about the nature of such executive decisions.
It stated,
“When such decisions are subjected to strict scrutiny in judicial review, they unfortunately expose themselves as parochial, potentially undermining our resolve of fraternity.”
Further, the Court cautioned about the larger implications of such narrow administrative decisions:
“Executive decisions like these seem minor or simple errors of perception but have far reaching consequences.”
The bench underlined the constitutional role of the judiciary to guard against such discriminatory decisions by saying,
“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.”
Taking a broader constitutional perspective, the court also stressed the significance of national unity and inclusiveness.
It observed,
“Principle of fraternity never asserts itself… it is the duty of 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.”
The Court reiterated that the teacher had been a regular and uninterrupted employee at Burdwan University since 2007.
“The purpose of the notification is not to exclude those who had acquired the 10 years of teaching experience from universities or colleges outside West Bengal,” the bench declared.
Dismissing the state’s argument entirely, the Court ruled that
“To insist on past teaching experience of 10 years within the state of West Bengal for extension of service, particularly when the employee had already worked for fourteen years was arbitrary and illegal.”
It concluded by describing the requirement imposed by the government as
“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.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the teacher was entitled to the benefit of the 2021 notification and ordered the state to cover the legal costs of the case, awarding him Rs 50,000 as costs.
Click Here to Read More Reports On SSC
