Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar VS State of West Bengal Service
West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act (17 of 1976) , S.4— Constitution of India , Art.14— Extension of retirement age – Denial of benefit – Appellant had already rendered over fourteen years of service, when State of West Bengal, issued a Memorandum Notification increasing age of retirement from 60 years to 65 years – Notification provided that benefit of increased age of retirement was extended only to those who had acquired a minimum of 10 years of continuous teaching experience in any State-aided university/college – Object of providing, “continuous teaching experience of 10 years in any university” as a condition in Notification was not at all to exclude such experience from universities or colleges outside State of West Bengal – To insist on past teaching experience of 10 years within State of West Bengal for extension of service, particularly when employee had already worked for fourteen years was arbitrary and illegal – Order denying benefit of Notification was set-aside by declaring that appellant will be entitled to benefit of Notification.
2024 Lab IC 966 (Cal)-ReversedAIR 2002 SC 2897-Relied on
In the instant case, the appellant had already rendered over fourteen years of service, when State of West Bengal, issued a Memorandum dated 24.02.2021 increasing the 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. The University informed that the appellant will retire 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’ The appellant challenged 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.
Held, that object of providing, “continuous teaching experience of 10 years in any university” as a condition in Notification, D/- 24.02.2021 was not at all to exclude such experience from universities or colleges outside State of West Bengal. To insist on past teaching experience of 10 years within State of West Bengal for extension of service, particularly when employee had already worked for fourteen years was arbitrary and illegal. The order denying benefit of Notification D/- 24.02.2021 was set-aside by declaring that appellant would be entitled to benefit of Notification D/-24.02.2021.
The State of West Bengal, issued a Memorandum Notification, D/-24.02.2021 increasing the 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. 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. By virtue of the Notification, the benefit of extended date of retirement given to teachers was now extended to non-teaching employees, for whom teaching experience may in fact not be relevant. Even assuming that such experience had some bearing on the performance of their duties during the extendable period of service, there was no purpose or object in confining such experience only through teaching in university or college in West Bengal. Extension of the retirement date, dependent on past experience of teaching in a university or a college located in West Bengal alone had no object to sub-serve 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 was artificial, discriminatory and arbitrary. The stand taken by the state and the university was illegal and violative of the equality norm as enunciated by Court. 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 was arbitrary and illegal. There was evidently no material to show how an employee who has already served the university for fourteen years would be better qualified for 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 was 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 same would also require demonstrating the distinctive and unique skill obtained through teaching in the State of West Bengal alone. Further, it was 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 was absolutely no material to this effect. It was nothing more than an artificial classification. It was 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. The order denying benefit of Notification D/- 24.02.2021 was set-aside by declaring that appellant would be entitled to benefit of Notification D/- 24.02.2021.
