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

The appellant was appointed as 'Non-core Faculty' on a contract basis in the State Institute of Rural Development (SIRD) in 2007, later regularized into the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (RD & PR) Department

On 22.09.2018, the Government of Manipur enhanced the superannuation age from 60 to 62 years specifically for the Manipur Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Service (MV & AHS)

The appellant, aged 59, submitted a representation seeking the same benefit, which was rejected via a speaking order on 24.10.2025 on the grounds that he belongs to the RD & PR Department, not MV & AHS

An 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 eventually succeeded

The appellant moved the Division Bench against this 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 parity claim with 'Veterinary Doctors' in the MV & AHS Department

Whether the enhancement of superannuation age from 60 to 62 years under the Notification dated 22.09.2018 is prima facie applicable to faculty members in departments other than MV & AHS

The court examined the administrative Notification dated 22.09.2018 which enhanced the age of superannuation specifically for the Manipur Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Service (MV & AHS)

It further considered the principle of "parity in employment," referencing the precedent set in *Dr. Laishram Saratchandra Singh v. State of Manipur* (WP(C) No. 748 of 2023), which extended benefits to Veterinary Officers in other departments discharging similar medical functions

The court also applied the principle that interim relief should not amount to granting the final relief sought in the main petition

The court reasoned that the appellant's reliance on the case of Dr. Laishram Saratchandra Singh was misplaced at the interim stage because Dr. Singh functioned as a "Veterinary Doctor/Officer" in the Zoological Garden, whereas the appellant is employed as "Faculty" in the RD & PR Department

The court found a prima facie distinction between the duties of a clinical veterinary doctor and an academic faculty member, even if the latter possesses veterinary qualifications

Furthermore, the court noted that the Single Bench had sufficiently protected the appellant's interests by directing that all "service benefits" (including arrears of salary) would be granted if the writ petitions were ultimately allowed

Granting a stay would effectively allow the appellant to continue in a public office without a clear statutory notification covering his specific cadre

The court held that the claim of parity between a 'Faculty in RD & PR' and 'Veterinary Doctors in MV & AHS' remains an open question to be decided during the final hearing of the writ petitions

The court requested the Single Bench to dispose of the main writ petitions expeditiously and clarified that the appellant remains entitled to full consequential service benefits should he succeed in the final hearing