Manipur High Court
Dr. Laishram Saratchandra Singh vs The State Of Manipur on 5 July, 2024
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 748 of 2023
Dr. Laishram Saratchandra Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o
Late Laishram Chourajit Singh, a resident of Khangabok Awang
Leikai, P.O./P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur, Pin-
795138.
...... Petitioner/s
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur, represented by Chief
Secretary/Secretary(DP), Government of Manipur, Old
Secretariat Building, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West, Manipur-
795001.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner (Forest &
Environment), Government of Manipur, Secretariat Building,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
3. The Principal Chief Conservative of Forest & HOFF,
Government of Manipur, Sanjenthong, Imphal East, Manipur.
........Respondent/s
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the petitioners :: Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, Sr. Adv. & Mr. L.
Raju, Adv.
For the respondents :: Mr. Th. Sukumar, G.A.
Date of Hearing :: 20.06.2024
Date of Judgment and Order :: 05.07.2024
WP(C) No. 748 of 2023 Page 1
ORDER (CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. L. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned
G.A. for the State respondents.
[2] The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially
appointed as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (now redesignated as Veterinary
Officer Grade-IV) on 01.03.1999 on ad-hoc basis in Manipur Zoological
Garden, Iroisemba under the Department of Forest & Environment,
Government of Manipur and vide order dated 24.11.2011 issued by the
Principal Secretary (For. & Envt.), Government of Manipur, the petitioner's
service was regularized. By Manipur Gazette Notification No. 248 dated
08.10.2018 in pursuance of the Cabinet decision taken on 30.07.2018, the
Governor of Manipur is pleased to enhance the age of superannuation of the
Officers of Manipur Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Service (MV & AHS)
from 60 years to 62 years. Vide another notification dated 12.02.2020 issued
in pursuance of the Cabinet Decision taken on 24.01.2020 and U.O. dated
11.02.2020 allotted by the Department of Personnel, Government of
Manipur, the age of the superannuation was enhanced from 60 years to 62
years in respect of 6 (six) Medical Officers and 6 (six) Veterinary Officers
working under Six Autonomous District Councils, Manipur w.e.f. 24.01.2020.
However, the petitioner was left out and the petitioner's date of
superannuation was not extended from 60 years to 62 years.
WP(C) No. 748 of 2023 Page 2
[3] Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted 2 (two)
representations dated 10.08.2021 and 05.09.2023 to the Director, Manipur
Zoological Garden and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest for
enhancement of age of superannuation for Veterinary Doctors from 60 years
to 62 years. Since the representations submitted by the petitioner were not
considered by the authorities, the petitioner approached this Court by way of
the present writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is retiring in the
month of June, 2024 on attaining the age of superannuation.
[4] The main ground for filing the present writ petition is that the
petitioner is also entitled for enhancement of the age of superannuation from
60 years to 62 years as done in the case of similarly situated Veterinary
Officers. It is also stated that the respondents have acted arbitrarily, unequal
treatments and have violated Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
[5] The respondent No. 1 has filed counter affidavit stating that
after the regularization of the petitioner's ad-hoc service, the service of the
petitioner is governed by the Department of Forest, Manipur Veterinary
Assistant Surgeon Recruitment Rules, 2010 vide notification dated
21.01.2010 and there is no executive order/provision enhancing the age of
superannuation of the service of the petitioner from 60 years to 62 years
under the Department of Forest, Manipur Veterinary Assistant Surgeon
Recruitment Rules, 2010. Since the petitioner is not working under the
Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Department Government of Manipur, the
petitioner has no right to claim the benefit of enhancement of age of
WP(C) No. 748 of 2023 Page 3
superannuation. It is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed as being
devoid of merit.
[6] Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have also filed counter affidavit
whereby it is stated that the age of superannuation of the Officers of Manipur
Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Service (MV & AHS) was enhanced from 60
years to 62 years vide Manipur Gazette Notification No. 248 dated
08.10.2018 and the same was also done in the case of Veterinary Officers
under 6 (six) Autonomous District Councils vide notification dated
12.02.2020. It is further stated that the Veterinary Officers of the Manipur
Zoological Garden, Iroishemba under the Forest Department is left out for
enhancement of the age of superannuation while the same has been
extended to all the Officers of Manipur Veterinary & Animal Husbandry
Services and to the Veterinary Officers working under Autonomous District
Councils. It is stated the representation submitted by the petitioner to the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest has been forwarded to the Additional
Chief Secretary (Forest, Environment & Climate Change), Government of
Manipur for enhance of age of superannuation and the same is under
process. It is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed as being devoid of
merit.
[7] Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that the plea of the respondents that the enhancement of age of
superannuation from 60 years to 62 years for the Veterinary Officers is
confined to those employees governed under MV&AHS is not tenable, as
the same benefit is extended to the Veterinary and Medical Officers of the
WP(C) No. 748 of 2023 Page 4
six Autonomous District Councils. It is pointed out that the service of the
Veterinary and Medical Officers of the 6 ADCs are not regulated by
MV&AHS. It is further urged that the pay and qualification of the veterinary
officer under Manipur Zoological Garden and that of under V&AH
Department are similar. Due to the lapse of the State Government, such
benefit was not extended to the petitioner and he shall not be made to suffer
for the lapse of the administration. Reliance is placed on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of John Vallamattom v. Union of India
reported as (2003) 6 SCC 611 @ Para 62 holding that principle of equality
before law is applicable in matter of granting of privileges and there should
be no discrimination between one person and another if their positions are
same. Para 62 is reproduced below:
62. Article 14 of the Constitution states that the State shall not deny
to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the
laws within the territory of India. The first part of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India is a declaration of equality of civil rights for all
purposes within the territory of India and basic principles of
republicanism and there will be no discrimination. The guarantee of
equal protection embraces the entire realm of "State action". It would
extend not only when an individual is discriminated against in the
matter of exercise of his right or in the matter of imposing liabilities
upon him, but also in the matter of granting privileges etc. In all these
cases, the principle is the same, namely, that there should be no
discrimination between one person and another if as regards the
subject-matter of the legislation their position is the same. In my view,
all persons in similar circumstances shall be treated alike both in
privileges and liabilities imposed. The classification should not be
arbitrary; it should be reasonable and it must be based on qualities
and characteristics and not any other who are left out, and those
qualities or characteristics must have reasonable relations to the
object of the legislation.
[8] Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
concludes that there is no difference in the work, qualification and pay scale
WP(C) No. 748 of 2023 Page 5
of the petitioner from those working in the Veterinary Department and in the
ADCs. It is re-iterated that there is no plausible reason for denying the benefit
of extension of age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the
petitioner, while similar benefits are granted to Veterinary Officers and
Medical Officers working in ADCs. It is prayed that the writ petition be
allowed by directing the respondents to extend the age of superannuation of
the petitioner from 60 years to 62 years as done in the case of the Veterinary
Officers working in other departments.
[9] Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned GA has pointed out that initially the
extension of age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years was granted
to the Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Department in pursuance of a
Cabinet decision and further extended to the ADCs on the basis of another
Cabinet decision. It is highlighted that there is no Cabinet decision for such
extension to the Veterinary Officer working in the Manipur Zoological Garden
and hence there can be no automatic extension of such benefit to the
petitioner. It is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed being devoid of any
merit.
[10] This Court considers the materials on record, the submissions
made at bar and the principles of law in this regard.
[11] It is an admitted fact that vide Notification dated 22.09.2018
issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personal
Division), Government of Manipur, the age of superannuation of officers of
Manipur Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Service (MV&AHS) was
WP(C) No. 748 of 2023 Page 6
extended from 60 years to 62 years in pursuance of a Cabinet decision taken
on 30.07.2018. Vide another Notification dated 12.02.2020 issued by Hill
Department, Government of Manipur, similar benefit was also extended to 6
Medical Officers and 6 Veterinary Officers of the 6 ADCs in pursuance of
another Cabinet decision dated 24.01.2020. However, the case of the
petitioner who is working as a Veterinary Officer in Manipur Zoological
Garden was not considered in spite of his representations made in this
regard. Due to inaction on the part of the administration, the case of the
petitioner was never placed before the Cabinet. 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.
[12] In the celebrated case of D. S. Nakara v. Union of India:
(1983) 1 SCC 305, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that classification under Article 14 should satisfy twin test of intelligible
differentia and nexus of classification with the object to be achieved. If
similarly situated persons are left out of the classification, the legislation
and/or executive action can be struck down for violation of the principle of
WP(C) No. 748 of 2023 Page 7
equality enshrined in the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Para 15 & 16
are reproduced for reference.
15. Thus the fundamental principle is that Article 14 forbids class
legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of
legislation which classification must satisfy the twin tests of
classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those
that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational
nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
16. As a corollary to this well established proposition, the next
question is, on whom the burden lies to affirmatively establish the
rational principle on which the classification is founded correlated to
the object sought to be achieved? The thrust of Article 14 is that the
citizen is entitled to equality before law and equal protection of laws.
In the very nature of things the society being composed of unequals
a welfare State will have to strive by both executive and legislative
action to help the less fortunate in the society to ameliorate their
condition so that the social and economic inequality in the society
may be bridged. This would necessitate a legislation applicable to a
group of citizens otherwise unequal and amelioration of whose lot is
the object of State affirmative action. In the absence of doctrine of
classification such legislation is likely to flounder on the bed rock of
equality enshrined in Article 14. The Court realistically appraising the
social stratification and economic inequality and keeping in view the
guidelines on which the State action must move as constitutionally
laid down in Part IV of the Constitution, evolved the doctrine of
classification. The doctrine was evolved to sustain a legislation or
State action designed to help weaker sections of the society or some
such segments of the society in need of succour. Legislative and
executive action may accordingly be sustained if it satisfies the twin
tests of reasonable classification and the rational principle correlated
to the object sought to be achieved. The State, therefore, would have
to affirmatively satisfy the Court that the twin tests have been
satisfied. It can only be satisfied if the State establishes not only the
rational principle on which classification is founded but correlate it to
the objects sought to be achieved. This approach is noticed in
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India7
when at SCR p. 1034 (SCC p. 506), the Court observed that a
discriminatory action of the Government is liable to be struck down,
unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was
not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself
was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.
[13] This Court is of the opinion that the stand of the respondents
that the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years
WP(C) No. 748 of 2023 Page 8
to 62 years will be applicable to the such Veterinary Officers under Manipur
Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Service is without any substance, as the
Medical Officers and Veterinary Officers working in the ADCs are also given
the same benefit of extended age of retirement from service. Further, the
exclusion of the case of the petitioner, a Veterinary Officer working in the
Manipur Zoological Garden, is without any valid reason. Absence of Cabinet
decision does not satisfy the twin test as propounded in D S Nakara case
(supra) and the same cannot be presumed to be an intelligible differentia
with regard to the object of classification.
[14] Accordingly, this Court holds that the age of superannuation of
the petitioner shall stand extended to 62 years. The writ petition is allowed
and disposed of. No cost.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Kh. Joshua Maring
KH. Digitally signed by
KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA MARING
Date: 2024.07.05
MARING 12:14:44 +05'30'
WP(C) No. 748 of 2023 Page 9
