Vumkhowneh Haokip vs State Of Manipur & 2 Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 369 Mani

Manipur High Court

Vumkhowneh Haokip vs State Of Manipur & 2 Ors on 27 August, 2024

Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma

Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma

                                                                    99
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                        AT IMPHAL


WP(C) No.486 of 2023


Vumkhowneh Haokip                            ... Petitioner

                                  -Versus-

State of Manipur & 2 Ors                     ... Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA 27.08.2024 O R D E R (ORAL) Heard Mr.Serto T.Kom, learned counsel along with Mr.Karung Kom, learned counsel and Ms.T.Raihing, learned Jr. to Mr.R.S.Reisang, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Ch.Sundari, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.

[2] The issue involved in the present case is whether Medical Officer posted in the Tribal Affairs & Hills, Government of Manipur is entitled to the enhanced age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years, as done in the case of Medical Officers of State Government as well as the Autonomous District Councils.

[3] Mr.Serto, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, was appointed vide order dated 27.08.1994 issued by the Commissioner (TD) Government of Manipur, as Medical Officer in the office of the Director for Development of Tribal & Backward Classes, Manipur and the Department of Tribal Development (TD), was later on re-designated as Tribal Affairs & Hills, Government of Manipur. Vide order dated 18.12.2015 issued by the Joint Secretary (TAH & SC Dev Deptt), Governor of Manipur,

WPC 486 OF 2023 ORAL was pleased to upgrade the post of Manipur Health Services (MHS) Grade-III held by the petitioner to MHS Grade-II with immediate effect and subject to the condition that the post would revert to MHS-III on superannuation of the petitioner.

[4] Vide another order dated 31.08.2016, Commissioner/TAH & SC, Government of Manipur was pleased to re-designation of the upgraded post of Medical Officer/TAH & SC held by the petitioner as Chief Medical Officer/ TAH & SC subject to the condition that re-designation shall be restricted to the nomenclature and shall not entail benefits extended to Chief Medical Officer of MHS Grade-II and will revert back to Medical Officer/TAH & SC upon vacation of the post by the petitioner. Vide another Notification dated 17.01.2020 issued by the Chief Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur, in pursuance of the Cabinet Decision, State Government fixed the age of superannuation of MHS Doctors (both Post Graduate holders and Non-Post Graduate holders) with immediate effect and in public interest at 62 years of age.

[5] Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that Notification dated 12.02.2020 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, (Tribal Affairs & Hills), Government of Manipur, enhanced the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years for the State Medical Officers & Veterinary Officers of six Autonomous District Council who are serving as on 24.01.2020. Vide letter dated 6.3.2023, Director, Tribal Affairs & Hills, Manipur submitted a proposal to the Additional Secretary, Tribal Affairs & Hills, Government of Manipur for enhancing age of superannuation of Medical Officer in TA & Hills Department from 60 to 62 years of age, as done in the case of MHS and ADCs Doctors.

[6] Further, vide letter dated 27.4.2023, Director, Tribal Affairs & Hills, Manipur informed the Additional Secretary (TA& H),

WPC 486 OF 2023 ORAL Government of Manipur that age of superannuation of the petitioner is on 28.02.2023 as his date of birth is 01.03.1963 as per the record shown in Salary Slip and necessary order of retirement may kindly be issued for his retirement w.e.f. 22.8.2023. Being aggrieved by the letter dated 27.04.2023, petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition praying for setting aside the impugned letter dated 27.4.2023 and with the direction to release arrears of his salary. The prayer is reproduced hereunder:

"i) Quash/set aside the impugned letter dated 27.4.23 (at Annexure-A/7);

ii) Direct the respondents to release the arrear salary of the petitioner since March, 2023.."

[7] Mr.Serto T.Kom, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following grounds that in terms of order dated 18.12.2015 the petitioner is shown to be holding MHS Grade-II post and entitled to enhanced age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years as applicable to the case of Medical Officers working in the ADCs under TA & Hills, Manipur. It is also submitted that if age of superannuation at 62 years for MHS is not applicable to the case of Medical Officers working in HA & Hlls, Department, the same would be discriminatory as the Doctors and Veterinary Officers working in Autonomous District Councils have also got benefit of extended age of superannuation to 62 years under the same department.

[8] Ms.Ch.Sundari, learned Government Advocate, relying on the counter affidavit of the State respondents submits that the petitioner is not an officer appointed under the MHS Rules and he will be a Medical Officer appointed under the TA & Hills, Department, Manipur and is governed by relevant Rules and as such, enhancement of age of superannuation to 62 years will not be applicable to an employee of the State Government and same will be governed by relevant Rules of the State Government. Learned WPC 486 OF 2023 ORAL Government Advocate also draws attention of this Court to order dated 31.8.2016 issued by the Commissioner, Health Services, Manipur that re-designation of posts held by the petitioner as Chief Medical Officer, TA & Hills & SC will not entail any benefit extended to Medical Officer Grade-II, as such the petitioner would not be entitled to enhanced age of superannuation to 62 years. It is provided that the order dated 31.08.2016 has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition or in any proceedings and the impugned letter dated 27.4.2923 has been issued in terms of the applicable Rules.

[9] It is further pointed out that the petitioner is serving in administrative capacity and not as Medical Officer and is presently holding Joint Director Post in the TA & Hills Department. It is submitted that the petition may be dismissed.

[10] It is further submitted that the proposal dated 6.3.2023 submitted by the Director, TA & Hills Manipur for fixing the date of superannuation of Medical Officer, TA & Hills has also not be considered by the State Government. It is submitted that the petitioner is bound to retire at the age of 60 as done in the case of employees of the State Government.

[11] Mr.Serto, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide an interim order dated 6.7.2023, this Court had directed that no action should be taken on the basis of letter dated 27.4.2023 and interim order has been extended from time to time and the termination order is yet to be issued as the same is stayed by this Court.

[12] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the order dated 18.12.2015 (Annexure A/2) issued by the Government of Manipur, it can be assumed that petitioner, who is a

WPC 486 OF 2023 ORAL Medical Officer in the TA, Hills & SC Development Department is holding post equivalent to MHS Grade-II and by the same order, it is subjected to the condition that the post shall revert to MHS-III on superannuation of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the State Government has not issued any modification to this order even by the subsequent order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the Commissioner/TAH &SC re-designating Medical Officers MHS Grade- II, without any extra benefit.

[13] Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Notification dated 17.1.2020 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur fixing age of superannuation of MHS Doctors at the age of 62 years and same benefit was extended to Medical Officers and Veterinary Officers working in six Autonomous District Councils, vide order dated 12.02.2020. It is pointed out that the Autonomous District Council is under the same Administrative Department of TA & Hills.

[14] Mr Serto, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, who is a Medical Officer in the TA & Hills, Manipur should also be entitled to the enhanced age of superannuation at 62 years as the same benefit has been conferred to counter parts in other Departments. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi VS Union of India: (1978) 1 SCC 248 to the effect that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. He further refers to another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors Vs State of UP: (1991) 1 SCC 212 where is it held that State action, in order to survive, must not be susceptible to the vice of arbitrariness which is the crux of Article 14 of the Constitution and basic to the rule of law. He also relied on the decision of John Vallamattom Vs Union of India: (2003) 6 SCC WPC 486 OF 2023 ORAL 611 in this regard. Mr Serto, learned counsel for the petitioner also draws attention of this Court to a recent decision of this Court in the judgment and order dated 5.7.2024 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.748 of 2023, Dr.Laishram Saratchandra Singh Vs State of Manipur: 2024 SCC Online Mani 197, where Veterinary Officer in the Manipur Zoological Garden was given the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 62 years as conferred to Veterinary Officer in the Manipur Veterinary Services as well as Veterinary Officers in the Autonomous District Councils relying on the case of D.S.Nakara :(1983) 1 SCC 305. This Court held that similarly situated Veterinary officer cannot be denied of service benefit conferred to other similarly situated person. In that case, this Court held age of superannuation of Veterinary Officer working in the Manipur Zoological Garden was extended to 62 years as done in the case of Veterinary Officers in other departments rejecting the plea of the State that since Veterinary Officer in the Manipur Zoological Garden was controlled by Manipur Veterinary Service Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is similar with the case of Dr.Laishram Saratchandra Singh, referred above.

[15] This Court has considered the materials on record and submissions made at the Bar and the decisions cited at the Bar. It is admitted fact that initially the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer in the then Directorate for Development of Tribal & Backward Classes, Manipur, now re-designated as Tribal Affairs and SC, Manipur. By order dated 18.12.2015 the post of Medical Officer TA & Hills is upgraded to MHS Grade-II even though the petitioner is not appointed under the Manipur Heath Services Rules. But by order dated 18.12.2015 issued by the competent authority he has been conferred with the status of MHS Grade-II till his retirement. By Notification dated 17.1.2020, Government of Manipur fixed age of

WPC 486 OF 2023 ORAL superannuation for Doctors under the MHS at 62 years and same benefit was extended to Medical Officers and Veterinary Officers in the six Autonomous District Councils vide another Notification dated 12.02.2020. By letter dated 6.3.2023, Director, TA & Hills Manipur submitted proposal to the Additional Secretary, TA & Hills, Manipur, for fixing age of superannuation of Medical Officers posted in the TA & Hills Department at 62 years as done in the case of MHS and Doctors in the Autonomous District Councils as referred above. The State Government has to take decision in the proposal submitted by the Director, TA & Hills. However, by the impugned letter dated 27.04.2023, Director TA & Hills, Manipur submitted proposal for fixing retirement of petitioner at the age of 60 years is on 28.2.2023 as done in the case of employees of the State Government. The impugned proposal dated 27.4.2023 and earlier proposal for fixing 6.3.2023 of the Director of TA & Hills are contradictory as there is no explanation in the impugned letter dated 27.4.2023 for taking a different stand.

[16] It is settled proposition of law that consistency and impartiality is the hallmark in the administration, in view of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. The case of the petitioner is exactly similar to the case of Dr.L.Saratchandra (supra) decided by this Court in WP(C) No.748 of 2023 where service of Veterinary Officer working in the Manipur Zoological Garden also has extended to 62 years as Veterinary Officer/employees in other departments and Autonomous Bodies.

[17] It may be noted that Notification for enhancing age of superannuation at the age of 62 years for Autonomous District Council is also issued by the same TA & Hills Manipur. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that petitioner is also entitled to retirement at the age of 62 years as done in the case of Medical Officers posted under the State Government as well as in the Autonomous District WPC 486 OF 2023 ORAL Councils. Accordingly, letter dated 27.4.2023 submitted by the Director, TA & Hills to the Additional Secretary, TA & Hills is set aside and petitioner is due to retire on 28.2.2025.

[18] Interim order is merged with the final order. With this observation, writ petition is allowed.

State respondents are directed to release arrears in the pay and salary for the petitioner, if any, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

JUDGE

Priyojit

RAJKUMA Digitally signed by RAJKUMAR R PRIYOJIT PRIYOJIT SINGH Date: 2024.08.30 SINGH 09:47:59 +05'30'

WPC 486 OF 2023 ORAL