### Parity in superannuation age requires functional equivalence between distinct service departments and designated posts.

The appellant was appointed as 'Non-core Faculty' in the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (RD & PR) Department on a contract basis in 2007.

His services were subsequently regularized.

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, holding degrees in Veterinary Science, submitted a representation in 2025 seeking the same benefit, which was rejected by the Directorate on 24.10.2025 on the grounds that he belonged to the RD & PR Department, not MV & AHS.

Consequently, an order dated 02.01.2026 was issued for his superannuation effective 28.02.2026.

The appellant challenged these orders via writ petitions.

A Single Bench refused to stay his retirement but directed that if he succeeded in the final hearing, he would be entitled to all service benefits.

The appellant filed these Writ Appeals against the refusal of the interim stay.

1. Whether a faculty member in the RD & PR Department can claim parity with Veterinary Doctors/Surgeons in the MV & AHS Department regarding the enhancement of superannuation age.

2. Whether the interim order refusing to suspend the superannuation order was justified given the protection of "service benefits" if the appellant eventually succeeds.

The court examined the scope of the Government Notification dated 22.09.2018, which enhanced the age of superannuation for specific veterinary services.

It applied the principle of "Claim of Parity," distinguishing between functional roles (Veterinary Doctors vs. Academic Faculty) even if educational qualifications are similar.

The court also relied on the principle that interim relief should not be granted if it amounts to granting the final relief sought in the main petition or results in the "usurpation of public office" without a requisite notification.

The Court analyzed whether the appellant's role as a "faculty" in the RD & PR Department was equivalent to a "Veterinary Doctor" in MV & AHS.

The appellant cited *Dr. Laishram Saratchandra Singh v. State of Manipur* [WP(C) No. 748 of 2023], where a doctor in the Zoological Garden was granted the benefit.

However, the Court distinguished that case, noting that Saratchandra Singh was actively discharging the functions of a Veterinary Doctor, whereas the appellant was employed as academic faculty.

The Court reasoned that parity is determined by the nature of the post and department, not merely personal qualifications like a Doctorate or NET.

Furthermore, the Court found no irreparable injury to the appellant because the Single Bench had already protected his interests by ordering that any final success in the writ petitions would entitle him to full back-wages and service benefits.

The Court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for an interim stay on retirement because his professional role as a faculty member in RD & PR was distinct from specialized veterinary services covered by the 2018 notification.

The Court clarified that while parity between different categories of Veterinary Doctors is settled, the claim of parity between "faculty in RD & PR" and "Veterinary Doctors in MV & AHS" remains an open question to be decided by the Single Judge during the final hearing of the writ petitions.

The Single Bench was requested to dispose of the main writ petitions expeditiously.