[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

[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