'Similarly Situated Person Can't Be Left Out': Manipur HC On State's Decision Excluding Veterinary Officer From Benefit Of Enhanced Retirement Age

Observing that providing different treatment to a similarly situated person goes against the spirit of the right to equality, the Manipur High Court struck down the State Government's notification which differentiates between the similarly situated Veterinary Officers in the State of Manipur for providing an age superannuation benefit from 60 to 62 years.

By placing reliance on the celebrated case of DS Nakara v. Union of India (1983), the Bench comprising Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma observed that the legislation/executive action can be struck down for violation of the principle of equality if the executive action doesn't satisfy the twin tests of reasonable classification and the rational principle correlated to the object sought to be achieved.

“The stand of the respondents that the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation will be applicable to those employees MV&AHS is without any credence as similar benefit has been extended to the Medical Officers and Veterinary Officers of ADCs. In a welfare State, the hallmark in the executive and legislative action is the principle of equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There can be classification for the purpose of Article 14, but it should be reasonable and intelligible so that such classification forms a homogeneous group. Similarly situated persons should not be left out of the group.”, the court observed.

In the present case, the petitioner Dr. Laishram Saratchandra Singh, working as a Veterinary Officer in Manipur Zoological Gardens, approached the High Court seeking to extend his service beyond 60 years of age, similar to other officers of Manipur Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Service (MV&AHS), and 6 (six) Medical Officers and 6 (six) Veterinary Officers working under Six Autonomous District Councils, Manipur, whose age of superannuation was increased from 60 years to 62 years.

The Respondent/State argued that since there was no Cabinet decision for an extension of the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years for the Veterinary Officer working in the Manipur Zoological Garden, hence there can be no automatic extension of such benefit to the petitioner.

Rejecting the State's contention, the Court held in favour of the petitioner by stating that similar benefits given to Medical Officers and Veterinary Officers working under 6 ADCs, should be extended to the petitioner who was working as a Veterinary Officer in Manipur Zoological Gardens.

The Court was of the view that excluding the petitioner from the benefit of age superannuation on the pretext of the absence of the cabinet decision regarding extending the same benefit to the petitioner doesn't satisfy the twin test as propounded in D S Nakara case and the same cannot be presumed to be an intelligible differentia with regard to the object of classification.

Accordingly, the Court held that the age of superannuation of the petitioner shall stand extended to 62 years. The writ petition is allowed, accordingly.

Case Details: Dr. Laishram Saratchandra Singh Versus The State of Manipur & Ors., WP(C) No. 748 of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Man) 7

Click here to read/download the Judgment