LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

SUBHA PRASAD NANDI MAJUMDAR versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL SERVICE & ORS

Citation: [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1808 · Decided: 30-07-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1808 : 2025 INSC 910
Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar 
v. 
The State of West Bengal Service & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 9913-9916 of 2025)
30 July 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by 
the Division Bench of the High Court upholding the University 
and State’s stance that government Notification dated 24.02.2021 
extending the retirement age from 60 to 65 years is inapplicable 
to the appellant due to non-satisfaction of the 10-year continuous 
teaching condition in a university situated in West Bengal.
Headnotes†
Service law – Retirement – Extension of retirement age 
from 60 to 65 years – Appellant served as a teaching staff 
member for 16 years at a college in Assam – Thereafter, in 
2007 joined West Bengal University to the post of Secretary, 
Faculty Council for Post-Graduate Studies, in 2012 promoted 
to the post of Senior Secretary, and continued in service 
uninterruptedly – In 2021, the West Bengal Government issued 
a Notification dated 24.02.2021, extending the retirement age 
from 60 to 65 years, provided the employee had at least 10 
years of continuous teaching experience in any State-aided 
university/college – Appellant denied the extension as he had 
no teaching experience in a ‘university or college aided by 
the State of West Bengal – Writ petition thereagainst allowed 
by the Single Bench of the High Court, however, the Division 
Bench set aside the same – Correctness: 
Held: 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, 
illegal and totally unjustified – 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 
* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 
1809
Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar v.  
The State of West Bengal Service & Ors.
dated 24.02.2021 is not at all to exclude such experience from 
universities or colleges outside the State of West Bengal, it 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 – While prescribing the 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 – 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 
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 – 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 – It is 
an artificial classification, a case of a suspect classification intended 
to sub-serve only parochial interests and nothing more – Stand 
taken by the State and the university is illegal and violative of the 
equality norm – Impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench 
of the High Court set aside. [Paras 15-21, 24, 27, 28]
Case Law Cited
J.S. Rukmani v. Govt. of T.N. [1985] 1 SCR 992 : (1984) Supp. 
SCC 650; Harshendra Choubisa v. State of Rajasthan [2002] 
Supp. 1 SCR 309 : (2002) 6 SCC 393; Onkarlal Nandlal v. State 
of Rajasthan [1985] Supp. 3 SCR 1075 : (1985) 4 SCC 404; 
Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Fraser and Ross 
[1960] 3 SCR 857 : 1960 SCC OnLine SC 49 – referred to.
List of Acts
Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005; West 
Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976; West Bengal 
Universities (Control of Expenditure) Amendment Act, 2017.
1810
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Government Notificatio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.