[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
Shri Arambam Somarendro Singh vs The State Of Manipur Through ... on 24 February, 2026
Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma
SHAMURAILAT Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILATPAM
PAM SUSHIL SUSHIL SHARMA
Date: 2026.02.24
SHARMA 20:15:12 +05'30'
REPORTABLE
Suppl-1, Sl. Nos. 1-2 and 3-4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WA No. 5 of 2026
Ref:- WP(C) No. 138 of 2026
Shri Arambam Somarendro Singh, aged about 59 years old
S/o. Arambam Munindro Singh, a resident of Lilong Chajing
Mairenkhong, Lilong Chajing, P.O. & P.S. Lilong, Imphal
West, Manipur-795130.
Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Manipur through Commissioner/Secretary,
(SIRD/RD & PR), Government of Manipur having its
office at Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O.
Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal, Imphal East
District, Manipur -795002.
2. The Director, (SIRD/RD & PR) Manipur having its office
at SIRD Complex, Porompat, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur -795001.
Respondents
With MC(WA) No. 8 of 2026
Ref:- WA No. 5 of 2026
With
WA No. 6 of 2026
Ref:- WP(C) No. 863 of 2025
Shri Arambam Somarendro Singh, aged about 59 years old
S/o. Arambam Munindro Singh, a resident of Lilong Chajing
Mairenkhong, Lilong Chajing, P.O. & P.S. Lilong, Imphal
West, Manipur-795130.
Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Manipur through Commissioner/Secretary,
(SIRD/RD & PR), Government of Manipur having its
office at Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O.
Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal, Imphal East
District, Manipur -795002.
2. The Director, (SIRD/RD & PR) Manipur having its office
at SIRD Complex, Porompat, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur -795001.
Respondents
With MC(WA) No. 9 of 2026
Ref:- WA No. 6 of 2026
Page 1 of 10
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
ORDER
(Order of the court was made by M. Sundar, CJ)
20.02.2026
[1] Captioned 2 (two) Writ Appeals ('WAs' in plural and 'WA' in
singular for the sake of convenience) are directed against an interim
order dated 18.02.2026 made in MC(WP(C)) No. 143 of 2026 in WP(C)
No. 138 of 2026 (wrongly mentioned as an order in WP(C) No. 143 of
2026 in the prayer for which counsel on record Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed
expresses regret). Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior advocate instructed by
Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed, learned counsel on record for the appellant in
both WAs is before this Court.
[2] The afore-referred order dated 18.02.2026 made in
MC(WP(C)) No. 143 of 2026 in WP(C) No. 138 of 2026 by a Hon'ble Single
Bench shall be referred to as 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity and
convenience. To be noted, when the impugned order was made by
Hon'ble Single Bench WP(C) No. 138 of 2026 along with MC (WP(C)) No.
143 of 2026 stood tagged with WP(C) No. 863 of 2025 and MC(WP(C))
No. 790 of 2025 thereat. Therefore, the writ appellant has filed 2 (two)
WAs though both WAs assail the same impugned order.
[3] Factual matrix in a nutshell is that the date of birth of writ
appellant (Shri Arambam Somarendro Singh is the writ appellant) is
01.03.1966; that a Notification dated 11.12.2007 was issued by the 'State
Institute of Rural Development' ('SIRD') inviting applications from eligible
candidates for the post of 'faculty members' in SIRD on contract basis
for 1 (one) year; that this Notification was for 4 (four) posts described as
'Non-core Faculty' in Agriculture, Fishery, Veterinary & Animal
Husbandry and Rural Engineering; that the writ appellant responded to
this Notification i.e., writ appellant applied; that on recommendation on
Selection Committee, the writ appellant was appointed as 'Non-core
Faculty' on contract basis in SIRD on consolidated pay; that thereafter,
in and by an order made by 'Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
Department' ('RD & PR Dept.'), Government of Manipur, a total of 68
(sixty eight) persons including the writ appellant were regularized and
absorbed as faculty staff in various categories in RD & PR Dept.,
Government of Manipur; that thereafter, on 22.09.2018, Government of
Manipur issued a Notification enhancing the age of superannuation from
60 to 62 with immediate effect but for officers of 'Manipur Veterinary &
Animal Husbandry Service' ('MV & AHS'); that the writ appellant almost
more than 6 (six) years later, sent a representation dated 28.02.2025
with a request to extend the benefit of enhancing of superannuation
from 60 to 62 years to him also; that thereafter, alleging inaction qua
this representation dated 28.02.2025, writ appellant came to this Court
by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No. 536 of 2025; that this WP(C)
No. 536 of 2025 came to be disposed of by a Single Bench of this Court
dated 01.08.2025 inter- alia directing the 28.02.2025 representation of
petitioner to be considered on its own merit in accordance with rules and
further directing disposal of the same by issuing a speaking order; that
thereafter, the Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (RD
& PR) disposed of the representation by a speaking order dated
24.10.2025 holding that writ appellant is working in RD & PR Dept.
whereas the 22.09.2025 Notification increasing the superannuation age
from 60 to 62 is only for MV & AHS Dept.; that thereafter, an order dated
02.01.2026 was made by the RD & PR Department saying that the writ
appellant on attaining age of superannuation with effect from 28.02.2026
(A/N) will stand terminated; that assailing this 24.10.2025 order rejecting
writ petitioner's representation dated 28.02.2025 and the 02.01.2026
order stating that the writ petitioner will attain superannuation on
28.02.2026 (on attaining the age of 60 years), writ appellant came to
this Court by way of 2 (two) writ petitions viz., afore-referred WP(C) No.
863 of 2025 along with MC thereat and WP(C) No. 138 of 2026 along
with a MC thereat; that both the WPs were tagged and on Board before
the Hon'ble Single Bench which made the impugned order; that the
impugned order is an interim order as already alluded to supra and the
interim order was made in MC seeking stay of 02.01.2026 order of
superannuation/termination on 28.02.2026; that in the interim order,
Hon'ble Single Bench refused to suspend the operation of the 02.01.2026
order, made it clear that if the writ appellant succeeds in the writ
petitions, he will be entitled to receive all the 'service benefits'; that this
order has not been assailed by State but it has been assailed by the writ
appellant who is writ petitioner in both the writ petitions viz., WP(C) no.
138 of 2026 and WP(C) No. 863 of 2025.
[4] Mr. Jotendro, learned senior counsel submitted that the
impugned order has been made primarily on the point that a person
appointed as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in MV & AHS Dept. cannot be
equated with a faculty in RD & PR Dept.. In this regard, learned senior
counsel drew the attention of this Court to paragraph 10 of the impugned
order and submitted that the writ petitioner, in his campaign for interim
order, predicated his argument on the ground that one Dr. Laishram
Saratchandra Singh serving as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon was given
this benefit more so, pursuant to order of this Court in WP(C) No. 748 of
2023.
[5] Issue notice in both captioned WAs and both captioned
MCs.
[6] Mr. W. Niranjit, learned State Counsel accepts notice for
both respondents in both WAs and both MCs. Mr. RK Umakanta, learned
senior counsel appears on his behalf and he is also before this Court.
[7] This Court took up the main WAs in the admission board
itself with the consent of learned senior counsel and counsel on record
on both sides. The main writ appeals were heard out.
[8] Learned senior counsel for appellants predicated his
campaign in the WAs primarily on the point that the writ appellant is very
well qualified as he has Bachelors Degree in Veterinary Science & Animal
Husbandry (including compulsory internship), he holds the Masters
degree (Gold Medalist), a Doctorate and he is double qualified with
regard to 'National Eligibility Test' (referred to as 'NET' in the
memorandum of appeal without giving expansion of the abbreviation and
expansion was mentioned in the hearing0. Learned senior counsel
submitted that writ appellant is more qualified than Dr. Laishram
Saratchandra Singh who is now serving as Veterinary doctor in Manipur
Zoological Garden under the Department of Forest and Environment.
[9] Learned senior counsel also submitted that it is imperative
that the writ appellant is permitted to continue his service and he is more
concerned about service than salary.
[10] In response to the afore-referred arguments, learned
senior counsel appearing for the State Counsel submitted that allowing
the captioned WAs will tantamount to giving final relief to the writ
appellant i.e., final reliefs sought for in the afore-referred writ petitions
and he also submitted that this will tantamount to usurpation of a public
office without requisite Notification. Be that as it may, learned State
Counsel emphasized the point that the RD & PR Dept. is very different
from MV & AHS Dept. It is the emphatic say of learned State Counsel
that the 22.09.2018 Notification enhancing superannuation age from 60
to 62 is applicable only to those working in MV & AHS Dept. and it cannot
be extended to those working in RD & PR Dept. It was pointed out that
the writ appellant was working in RD & PR as a 'faculty' which is very
different from the functions of a 'Veterinary doctor' in MV & AHS.
[11] This Court carefully considered the rival submissions.
[12] The discussion and dispositive reasoning of this Court is as
follows :
i) Before delving into discussion on the rival
contentions, it is necessary to advert to earlier Single
Bench order dated 05.07.2024 made in WP(C) No.
748 of 2023 in the case of one Dr. Laishram
Saratchandra Singh as the primary plank of the writ
appellant is claiming parity with Dr. Laishram
Saratchandra Singh. In this order dated 05.07.2024
made in WP(C) No. 748 of 2023, the benefit of
enhancement of superannuation age from 60 to 62
vide Notification 22.09.2018 was extended to Dr.
Laishram Saratchandra Singh on the basis that he is
working as Veterinary Officer in Manipur Zoological
Garden which is under the Department of Forest and
Environment and when the superannuation
enhancement benefit has been extended to medical
officers and Veterinary officers in ADC (Autonomous
District Councils) there is no reason why it should
not be extended to Dr. Laishram Saratchandra Singh
who is discharging a similar function. In this view of
the matter, this Court finds that Dr. Laishram
Saratchandra Singh is differently placed as he is
working as a 'Veterinary doctor' and not as a
'faculty' but he was working as Veterinary
officer/doctor in Manipur Zoological Garden.
Therefore, the reference to order dated 05.07.2024
in WP(C) No. 748 of 2023 is misplaced and it does
not come to the aid of the appellant;
ii) The contention of the writ appellant that the writ
appellant is more concerned with service than with
salary does not weigh with this Court as Hon'ble
Single Bench in the impugned order has made it
clear that in the event of the writ petitioner
succeeding in the writ petitions, he will be entitled
to receive all 'service benefits'. This means that
the writ appellant would necessarily get all service
benefits including salary. To be noted, this point is
not disputed by learned State Counsel and as
already alluded to supra, State has not assailed the
impugned order.
(iii) As regards our finding that Dr. Laishram
Saratchandra Singh's case is on a different footing,
we make it clear that this Court has held that Dr.
Laishram Saratchandra Singh is on a different
footing only with regard to his case in WP(C) No.
748 of 2023 as in WP(C) No. 748 of 2023, it was a
case where he was working as Veterinary officer in
Manipur Zoological Garden and was denied the
benefit of enhancement of superannuation age only
on the ground that he is in MV & AHS Dept. though
such benefit has been extended to medical officers
and Veterinary officers in ADCs (Autonomous District
Councils). This means that as regards the claim of
the writ petitioner i.e., writ petitioner's claim of
parity with Dr. Laishram Saratchandra Singh, the
same can be considered by the Hon'ble Single Judge
when the main WPs are heard out. To put it
differently, for the sake of specificity, we clarify that
Dr. Laishram Saratchandra Singh's claim of parity
with Veterinary Surgeons in MV & AHS in WP(C) No.
748 of 2023 is very different from writ petitioner's
claim for parity with MV & AHS and particularly Dr.
Laishram Saratchandra Singh as those in MV & AHS
are working as 'Veterinary doctors' whereas writ
appellant is working as 'faculty' in RD & PR Dept.
However, now that the benefit of the enhancement
of superannuation vide 22.09.2025 Notification has
been extended to Dr. Laishram Saratchandra Singh,
it is open to the Hon'ble Single Judge to consider
writ appellant's claim for parity with him. For the
sake of abundant clarity and specificity, we deem it
appropriate to write that while parity qua
'Veterinary doctors' working in Zoological Garden
and MV & AHS is settled, claim of parity between
'faculty in RD & PR' and 'Veterinary doctors in
MV & AHS' is left open.
[13] Before we part with the matter, we request the Hon'ble
Single Bench to hear out and dispose of the 2 (two) WPs viz., WP(C) No.
863 of 2025 and WP(C) No. 138 of 2026 and MCs thereat along with WP
being WP(C) No. 126 of 2026 (assailing stoppage of Non-practicing
allowance) as expeditiously as the Board of Hon'ble Single Bench would
permit. Learned counsel on both sides as well as Mr. M. Rendy, learned
counsel on record for writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 126 of 2026 who is
present in Court undertake to co-operate in expeditious disposal of the 3
(three) writ petitions.
[14] In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive
reasoning thus far, captioned main WAs fail and the same are dismissed
albeit with afore-referred observations. Consequently, captioned MCs
thereat also perish with the WAs and the same are also dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sushil
UPLOAD FORTWITH
