Faculty in Rural Development Department cannot automatically claim superannuation parity with Veterinary Service doctors.

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

On 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)

The appellant, claiming that his qualifications in Veterinary Science entitled him to the same benefit, submitted a representation in 2025 which was rejected by the Directorate on 24.10.2025, on the grounds that the notification applied only to the MV & AHS Department and not the RD & PR Department

A subsequent order dated 02.01.2026 directed his retirement on 28.02.2026

The appellant challenged these orders via writ petitions.

A Single Bench refused to stay the retirement order but noted he would be entitled to service benefits if he succeeded in the main petitions

The appellant filed these Writ Appeals against that interim refusal.

Whether the appellant, serving as a 'faculty' member 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

Whether the enhancement of superannuation age provided for MV & AHS officers via the Notification dated 22.09.2018 can be prima facie extended to faculty members in other departments holding similar academic qualifications

The Court considered the administrative Notification dated 22.09.2018 which limited the age enhancement benefit to the MV & AHS service

It also examined the principle of parity in service law, specifically referring to the precedent in *Dr. Laishram Saratchandra Singh v. State of Manipur* (WP(C) No. 748 of 2023), where the extension of superannuation benefits was granted to a Veterinary Officer in the Forest Department because he performed functions identical to those in MV & AHS

The Court analyzed whether the appellant met the criteria for "parity of function" required for interim relief.

It distinguished the appellant's case from *Dr. Laishram Saratchandra Singh*, noting that while Singh worked as a "Veterinary doctor" in the Zoological Garden, the appellant was employed as "faculty" in the RD & PR Department

The Court reasoned that academic qualifications alone (MBH/MVSc) do not determine the category of service; rather, the nature of the post and the department govern retirement rules

Since the appellant’s role was educational/administrative (faculty) rather than clinical/veterinary practice within the specified service, no prima facie case for parity was established to warrant staying the retirement order

The Court further noted that the appellant's interests were protected by the Single Bench’s observation that he would receive back-wages and benefits if he eventually succeeded in the main writ petitions

The Court held that parity between a "faculty in RD & PR" and "Veterinary doctors in MV & AHS" is a triable issue for the final hearing and cannot be assumed at the interim stage

The Court clarified that the claim of parity remains open for adjudication in the pending writ petitions and requested the Single Bench to dispose of the main matters expeditiously