A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra criticised the policy that denied an extended retirement age to the employee for lacking ten years of continuous teaching experience in a state-aided institution within West Bengal, calling it “arbitrary” and “without rational nexus or discernible object.”
The apex court noted that the state government’s February 2021 memorandum, which raised the retirement age for university teachers from 60 to 65 years, was meant to distinguish between state-aided and private institutions, but not to exclude those who had acquired relevant teaching experience outside West Bengal.
“To insist on 10 years of teaching experience within West Bengal, particularly when the employee had already served for 14 years in the state, is arbitrary and illegal,” the court stated.
The appellant in question had an extensive academic background. He began his career at Cachar College, Silchar in 1991 and joined Burdwan University in 2007. In 2012, he was promoted to Senior Secretary, Faculty Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Science. After the 2021 order was issued, he applied for the benefit of the increased retirement age but was informed that he would retire at 60, as he lacked teaching experience in a state-aided university or college within West Bengal.
Initially, a single judge of the Calcutta High Court ruled in his favour. However, this decision was overturned by a division bench, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a sharply worded judgment, the Supreme Court said such classification “exposes itself as parochial” when examined under constitutional scrutiny and emphasized that it is the duty of constitutional courts to strike down such arbitrary policies.
As part of its ruling, the court awarded the appellant costs of ₹50,000 and confirmed that he is entitled to the benefit of the 2021 memorandum, thereby granting him the extended retirement age.
This decision is likely to have wider implications for similarly placed educators and may prompt the West Bengal government to revise its retirement benefit policy in accordance with constitutional norms.
About the Author
