SANJAY SADASHIV BENDRE & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

                 [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1165 : 2025 INSC 400

                   Sanjay Sadashiv Bendre & Anr.
                                  v.
                   The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 3519 of 2025)
                                03 March 2025
              [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose whether the reclassification of Leading Fireman/Tandel
       under the Recruitment Rules, 2014, as Class III, validly overrides
       the earlier classification under Appendix A of the MSR 1954, and
       consequently fixes the retirement age at 58 rather than 60.

                                  Headnotes†
       Municipal Service Regulations, 1954 – reg.66 – Pune Municipal
       Corporation (Recruitment & Classification of Services) Rules,
       2014 – Retirement age – Retirement age of leading fireman/
       tandel fixed at 60 years under MSR, 1954 – Retirement age
       reduced from 60 to 58 years by Recruitment Rules, 2014 –
       Challenge to – High Court dismissed the petition and held
       that Recruitment Rules, 2014 must be read harmoniously with
       MSR, 1954, retirement age at 58 years upheld – Correctness:
       Held: In the absence of any express legislative or regulatory
       pronouncement, it would be contrary to established canons
       of statutory interpretation to conclude that the classification of
       Leading Fireman/Tandel as Class III in the 2014 Rules negates
       their statutory right to retire at 60 under the MSR, 1954 – Impetus
       for changing their retirement to 58 has arisen solely by way of
       the general classification found in the Recruitment Rules, 2014 –
       Neither the text nor the legislative history of the 2014 Rules
       discloses an unequivocal intent to dismantle the 1954 framework
       on retirement age – Indeed, the 2014 Rules did not specify any new
       retirement prescriptions; rather, they left service-condition issues
       to be governed in accordance with existing regulations – To the
       extent there is any overlap, it must be construed harmoniously,
       giving due recognition to the specific retirement provisions in the



* Author
1166                                                             [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


    MSR, 1954 – Post of Leading Fireman/Tandel continues to be
    governed by the retirement prescriptions of the MSR, 1954 – Once
    it is ascertained that Appendix A places them within the “inferior
    service,” the statutory retirement age for such employees remains
    60 – Broad reclassification under the Recruitment Rules, 2014 for
    recruitment and promotional pathways cannot be read to impliedly
    curtail the very service condition, retirement age, that is distinctly and
    comprehensively governed by an existing regulation – High Court
    erred in concluding that the reclassification under the Recruitment
    Rules, 2014 automatically confines Leading Fireman/Tandel to
    the 58 year retirement limit – MSR 1954 scheme for retirement,
    pursuant to which those in “inferior service” superannuate at 60,
    stands unaltered in law. [Paras 11, 15, 16]

                                 List of Acts
    Municipal Service Regulations, 1954; Pune Municipal Corporation
    (Recruitment & Classification of Services) Rules, 2014; Maharashtra
    Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.

                              List of Keywords
    Retirement age; Superior service; Inferior service; Leading fireman/
    tandel; Reclassification; Constructed harmoniously; Class of posts;
    Period of service; Specific regulation; Legislative of regulatory
    pronouncement; Standing Committee; Statutory interpretation;
    Municipal Bodies; Power to reorganize or rationalise services.

                             Case Arising From
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3519 of 2025
    From the Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2023 of the High Court
    of Judicature at Bombay WP No. 1165 of 2021

                          Appearances for Parties
    Advs. for the Appellants:
    C.U. Singh, Uday B. Dube, Sr. Advs., A. Selvin Raja, Susheel
    Mahadeshwar.
    Advs. for the Respondents:
    Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
    Pande, Dr. Arvind S. Avhad, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          1167

     Sanjay Sadashiv Bendre & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.


                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                     Order

       Vikram Nath, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     By way of the present appeal, the appellants challenge the final
       judgment dated 02.05.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature
       at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1165 of 2021 (hereinafter, “impugned
       judgment”). The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the
       retirement age of 58 years for the post of Leading Fireman/Tandel in
       the Pune Municipal Corporation, contrary to the appellants’ claim that
       the retirement age should be 60 years under the Municipal Service
       Regulations, 1954 (“MSR, 1954”).
3.     The factual background giving rise to this dispute is as follows:
       3.1. The Pune Municipal Corporation framed the MSR, 1954 pursuant
            to the powers granted under Section 465 of the Maharashtra
            Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (“MMC Act”). Regulation 66
            of the MSR, 1954 classifies municipal employees into “superior
            service” (retirement age 58) and “inferior service” (retirement
            age 60). Appendix A to these Regulations places Leading
            Fireman/Tandel in the “inferior service” category, thereby entitling
            them to retire at 60.
       3.2. In 2008, the Government of Maharashtra, by circular dated
            02.07.2008, directed the Municipal Corporations to frame
            recruitment rules specifically in respect of certain posts under
            Section 457(3) of the MMC Act. Accordingly, Pune Municipal
            Corporation (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules, 2011 were
            drafted. These were eventually sanctioned by the Government
            vide resolution dated 26.08.2014 and published as the Pune
            Municipal Corporation Services (Recruitment & Classification
            of Services) Rules, 2014 (“Recruitment Rules, 2014”).
       3.3. Under the Recruitment Rules, 2014, the post of Leading Fireman/
            Tandel was classified as Class III. Meanwhile, within the MSR,
            1954, that very post remained in Appendix A, generally treated
            as Class IV (or “inferior service”) for retirement purposes.
            Relying on the new classification in the 2014 Rules, the Pune
1168                                                        [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          Municipal Corporation issued orders in 2019 and 2021 stating
          that incumbents on the post of Leading Fireman/Tandel would
          be retired upon reaching 58 years. Several writ petitions were
          filed before the High Court challenging this reclassification
          and seeking retention of the 60-year retirement age based on
          MSR, 1954.
     3.4. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that although
          the MSR, 1954 governs retirement age, the classification made
          by the later Recruitment Rules, 2014 (placing Leading Fireman/
          Tandel in Class III) must be read harmoniously with the MSR,
          1954. Thus, once the post is recognized as Class III, the natural
          corollary under the MSR, 1954 is a retirement age of 58 years.
4.   Aggrieved by the view taken by the High Court, the appellants
     contend that the original classification of Leading Fireman/Tandel
     in Appendix A of the MSR, 1954, which provides for retirement
     at 60, cannot be superseded by a mere reclassification under the
     Recruitment Rules, 2014. The primary submissions as rendered by
     learned senior counsel Mr. C.U. Singh are as follows:
     •    The Recruitment Rules, 2014 deal primarily with qualifications
          and modes of appointment, not service conditions like retirement
          age.
     •    Section 465 of the MMC Act empowers the Standing Committee
          to regulate the “period of service,” and the 1954 Regulations
          stand duly confirmed by the Corporation.
     •    There is no direct conflict between the 1954 Regulations and
          the 2014 Rules; hence no basis for “harmonious construction”
          curtailing the retirement age.
5.   From the pleadings and materials on record, it is evident that both
     sides accept that the MSR, 1954 indisputably sets retirement ages
     of 58 for “superior service” (Class I–III) and 60 for “inferior service”
     (Class IV). The real controversy stems from the apparently divergent
     classification of Leading Fireman/Tandel:
     ⇒    Under Appendix A to the MSR, 1954, the post is listed in the
          inferior service (thereby indicating 60 years).
     ⇒    Under Recruitment Rules, 2014, the same post is placed in
          Class III (connoting “superior service” and implying 58 years
          retirement in the MSR, 1954).
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                            1169

     Sanjay Sadashiv Bendre & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.


6.     The principal issue, therefore, before this Court is whether the
       reclassification of Leading Fireman/Tandel under the Recruitment
       Rules, 2014, as Class III, validly overrides the earlier classification
       under Appendix A of the MSR 1954, and consequently fixes the
       retirement age at 58 rather than 60?
7.     This Court has carefully considered the statutory scheme of the
       MSR, 1954 and the Recruitment Rules, 2014. For clarity, the relevant
       extracts from the MMC Act are reproduced hereunder:
            Section 457(3)(a) – Matters in respect of which rules may
            be made
            “(3) Municipal Officers and Servants—
            (a) The qualifications necessary for and the method of
            appointment to posts, the power of appointment to which
            vests in the Corporation; …””
            Section 465(1)(g) – Regulations
            “(1) The Standing Committee shall from time to time frame
            regulations not inconsistent with this Act and the rules but
            in consonance with any resolution that may be passed by
            the Corporation—
            …
            (g) regulating the period of service of all the said officers
            and servants.”
8.     On a plain reading of the relevant provisions of the MMC Act, it is
       evident that matters concerning the period of service, especially the
       age of retirement, are squarely addressed by the MSR, 1954, framed
       under Section 465 of MMC Act. By contrast, the Recruitment Rules,
       2014, sanctioned under Sections 454, 455, and 457 of MMC Act,
       govern the qualifications and methods of appointment, alongside a
       broad classification of posts. While there is a superficial overlap in
       the classifications adopted by the two sets of rules, that alone does
       not inexorably mandate the retirement age to be determined solely
       by post reclassification in the Recruitment Rules, 2014.
9.     It is significant to note that Regulation 66 of the MSR, 1954, which
       specifically prescribes retirement ages, was introduced after a focused
       deliberation under the authority of the Standing Committee, with
1170                                                         [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     subsequent confirmation by the Corporation. This regulation draws
     a clear distinction between “superior service,” in which employees
     retire at 58, and “inferior service,” where retirement takes place at
     60. Appendix A to the MSR, 1954 unequivocally places Leading
     Fireman/Tandel within the sphere of “inferior service,” thereby entitling
     them to the higher retirement age of 60. It was not shown that this
     particular classification was ever explicitly repealed or overridden by
     any subsequent enactment or amendment directed at retirement age.
10. Turning to the Recruitment Rules, 2014, it bears emphasis that
    these rules were framed and sanctioned under Sections 454, 455,
    and 457 of the MMC Act. A plain reading of Section 457(3)(a), which
    empowers the Corporation to make rules regarding “the qualifications
    necessary for and the method of appointment to posts the power of
    appointment to which vests in the Corporation”, demonstrates that
    such rules are meant primarily to provide for eligibility criteria and
    recruitment methodologies. Indeed, the 2014 Rules, in line with their
    statutory foundation, lay down the necessary qualifications, selection
    procedures, and a broad classification of posts for recruitment
    purposes. It does not automatically follow that every condition of
    service, especially retirement age, must be imported into the MSR,
    1954, without regard to the specific framework therein. A distinction
    must, therefore, be maintained between the overarching “class of
    posts” for recruitment and the distinct, statutorily rooted retirement
    scheme comprehensively set out in the MSR, 1954.
11. Indeed, the MMC Act itself contemplates separate domains for
    “rules” framed under Section 457 and “regulations” framed under
    Section 465 thereof. The former, subject to the sanction of the State
    Government, chiefly concerns appointments (including qualifications
    and selection procedures), while the latter is entrusted to the Standing
    Committee, albeit requiring the Corporation’s confirmation, primarily
    for regulating service conditions, including the “period of service” and
    retirement. Where the legislature has thus carved out different areas
    of competence, a later set of recruitment rules framed under Section
    457(3)(a) of the MMC Act cannot be presumed to override an earlier
    set of regulations specifically framed to fix retirement ages. Only
    where there is a manifest conflict, one that cannot be harmonized,
    would it be necessary to consider whether the specific regulation
    on retirement yields to a subsequent rule. On a contextual reading,
    however, no such irreconcilable conflict arises here.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                       1171

  Sanjay Sadashiv Bendre & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.


12. The notion that a general classification introduced for recruitment
    purposes must displace a well-defined retirement scheme overlooks
    the very essence of the MSR, 1954. The latter, having been formulated
    to address the integral aspects of service conditions, remains the
    more special and focused legislative instrument on the question of
    retirement. While the Recruitment Rules, 2014 shape entry pathways
    and staff structuring, they do not purport to speak conclusively on
    retirement ages, nor do they expressly declare an intent to supersede
    or modify the MSR, 1954 in that regard. In the absence of any such
    express legislative or regulatory pronouncement, it would be contrary
    to established canons of statutory interpretation to conclude that the
    classification of Leading Fireman/Tandel as Class III in the 2014 Rules
    negates their statutory right to retire at 60 under the MSR, 1954.
13. This interpretation is reinforced by the practical reality that, for
    decades, Leading Fireman/Tandel personnel were treated as part
    of the “inferior service,” retiring at 60 as per Regulation 66 read with
    Appendix A. The impetus for changing their retirement to 58 has arisen
    solely by way of the general classification found in the Recruitment
    Rules, 2014. Yet, neither the text nor the legislative history of the
    2014 Rules discloses an unequivocal intent to dismantle the 1954
    framework on retirement age. Indeed, the 2014 Rules did not specify
    any new retirement prescriptions; rather, they left service-condition
    issues to be governed in accordance with existing regulations.
    To the extent there is any overlap, it must be construed harmoniously,
    giving due recognition to the specific retirement provisions in the
    MSR, 1954.
14. Furthermore, if the Corporation intended to revise the retirement age
    of any category of employees, it ought to have followed the procedure
    envisaged under the MMC Act for amending or rescinding the MSR,
    1954, including the requisite resolutions of the Standing Committee
    and approval from the Corporation. By adopting a mere classification
    measure under recruitment rules, no direct or implied repeal of
    Regulation 66 of MSR 1954 was effected. The fundamental principle
    is that a provision specifically dealing with retirement, especially one
    in force for a considerable length of time, cannot be undermined by
    a general classification clause in subordinate recruitment rules, in
    the absence of any clear legislative direction.
1172                                                       [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


15. To sum up the post of Leading Fireman/Tandel continues to be
    governed by the retirement prescriptions of the MSR, 1954. Once
    it is ascertained that Appendix A places them within the “inferior
    service,” the statutory retirement age for such employees remains
    60. The broad reclassification under the Recruitment Rules, 2014 for
    recruitment and promotional pathways cannot be read to impliedly
    curtail the very service condition, retirement age, that is distinctly
    and comprehensively governed by an existing regulation.
16. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the High Court
    erred in concluding that the reclassification under the Recruitment
    Rules, 2014 automatically confines Leading Fireman/Tandel to the
    58-year retirement limit. The MSR 1954 scheme for retirement,
    pursuant to which those in “inferior service” superannuate at 60,
    stands unaltered in law.
17. Before concluding, we deem it necessary to observe that the
    approach of the respondents in abruptly altering the retirement age,
    merely by reference to a generic classification under recruitment
    rules, disregards the legitimate expectations of employees who have
    structured their personal and professional lives around the established
    service regulations. Such actions strain not only the legal framework
    but also notions of fairness, particularly when no express legislative
    or regulatory change was initiated to revise the existing retirement
    scheme. This Court must emphasize that while municipal bodies hold
    the power to reorganize or rationalize services, such steps must be
    undertaken by following the prescribed statutory procedure, after due
    notice, and with proper safeguards for employees’ rights.
18. For the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment dated
    02.05.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in
    Writ Petition No. 1165 of 2021 is set aside. The appellants to continue
    till the age of 60 years and be entitled to all consequential benefits
    accordingly.
19. Consequently, any orders issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation
    retiring or proposing to retire incumbents on the post of Leading
    Fireman/Tandel at 58 years are hereby quashed. The Corporation shall
    give effect to the retirement age of 60 years for all persons holding
    the said post, subject to any applicable statutory exceptions, and shall
    ensure that service records, pension benefits, and other entitlements
    are correctly computed based on the 60-year superannuation.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                       1173

  Sanjay Sadashiv Bendre & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.


20. In the event that any employee was relieved from service or denied
    benefits under the assumption that 58 years was the retirement
    age, the Corporation shall undertake a prompt review of individual
    cases. Where the employee has not yet attained 60 and wishes to
    serve, the Corporation shall restore him or her to service, if feasible.
    In cases where the employee has already reached or crossed the
    age of 60, the Corporation shall confer all notional benefits, including
    recalculation of pension and retirement benefits, as though the
    employee had continued in service until attaining 60 years. However,
    no actual salary or other monetary emoluments shall be paid for the
    period during which the employee did not serve. This exercise shall
    be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three
    months from the date of this order.
21. Appeal allowed.
22. All pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of accordingly.
23. There shall be no order as to costs.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain