Facts
The appellant was appointed as 'Non-core Faculty' on a contract basis in the State Institute of Rural Development (SIRD) in 2007 and was subsequently regularized in the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (RD & PR) Department
Source reference: p. 3On 22.09.2018, the Government of Manipur issued a notification enhancing the superannuation age from 60 to 62 years specifically for officers of the 'Manipur Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Service' (MV & AHS)
Source reference: p. 3The appellant, holding degrees in Veterinary Science, requested the same benefit via a representation dated 28.02.2025, which was rejected by the Directorate on 24.10.2025 on the grounds that he belongs to the RD & PR Dept., not the MV & AHS Dept.
Source reference: p. 3-4An order dated 02.01.2026 directed his retirement on 28.02.2026
Source reference: p. 4The appellant challenged these orders via writ petitions.
Source reference: no citationA Single Bench refused to grant interim stay on his retirement but noted he would be entitled to service benefits if he succeeded in the final hearing
Source reference: p. 4The appellant moved the Division Bench against this interim refusal.
Source reference: p. 4Issues
Whether the appellant, serving as a 'faculty' in the RD & PR Department, is entitled to an interim stay on his retirement based on a claim of parity with Veterinary Doctors in the MV & AHS Department
Source reference: p. 5, para 4Whether the parity granted to a Veterinary Officer in the Manipur Zoological Garden in a previous judgment (*Dr. Laishram Saratchandra Singh case*) is applicable to the appellant
Source reference: p. 7, para 12(i)Law Applied
The court examined the Government Notification dated 22.09.2018, which prescribes the enhancement of superannuation age specifically for the MV & AHS cadre
Source reference: p. 3It applied the principle of classification, distinguishing between functional roles (Veterinary Doctor vs. Faculty member) even if the individual possesses similar educational qualifications
Source reference: p. 6, para 10The court also referenced the precedent in *Dr. Laishram Saratchandra Singh v. State of Manipur* (WP(C) No. 748 of 2023), which extended benefits to officers performing "similar functions" as Veterinary Doctors in other departments
Source reference: p. 7, para 12(i)Reasoning
The Court observed that the appellant’s reliance on the *Dr. Saratchandra Singh* case was misplaced at the interim stage because Dr. Singh functioned as a "Veterinary Doctor/Officer" in the Zoological Garden, whereas the appellant was employed as a "Faculty" member in the RD & PR Department
Source reference: p. 7-8The Court reasoned that educational qualification alone does not determine the application of a department-specific service rule; the nature of the post and functions are paramount
Source reference: p. 6Furthermore, the balance of convenience did not favor the appellant for an interim stay because the Single Bench had already protected his interests by ordering that he would be entitled to all "service benefits" (including salary/arrears) should he succeed in the main writ petitions
Source reference: p. 8, para 12(ii)The Court held that granting the stay would effectively grant the final relief at the interim stage
Source reference: p. 6, para 10Holding
The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeals and the connected Miscellaneous Cases, affirming the Single Bench’s refusal to stay the retirement
The Court held that the claim of parity between a 'faculty in RD & PR' and 'Veterinary Doctors in MV & AHS' remains a triable issue for the final hearing
Source reference: p. 10The Court requested the Single Bench to dispose of the main writ petitions (WP(C) No. 863/2025 and 138/2026) expeditiously
Source reference: p. 10, para 13Original Court PDF
Shri Arambam Somarendro Singh v. The State of Manipur & Anr. [WA No. 5 of 2026 & WA No. 6 of 2026]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in