Manipur High Court: In a civil writ petition against a notification of the State Government differentiating between the similarly situated Veterinary Officers for providing superannuation benefit, enhancing the age from 60 to 62 years, A. Guneshwar Sharma, J. allowed the petition and held that the age of superannuation of the petitioner shall stand extended to 62 years.
The petitioner was initially appointed as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon on 01-03-1999 on ad-hoc basis in Manipur Zoological Garden, Iroisemba under the Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Manipur. Vide order dated 24-11-2011 of the Principal Secretary, Government of Manipur, the petitioner’s service was regularized. The age of superannuation of the Officers of Manipur Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Service (MV & AHS) was enhanced from 60 to 62 years. Vide another notification, the age of the superannuation was enhanced from 60 to 62 years in respect of six Medical Officers and six Veterinary Officers working under Six Autonomous District Councils, Manipur. However, the petitioner was left out and the petitioner’s date of superannuation was not extended from 60 to 62 years.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted two representations dated to the Director, Manipur Zoological Garden and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest for enhancement of age of superannuation for Veterinary Doctors from 60 to 62 years. On non-consideration of his representation, the petitioner approached the Court by way of the present writ petition.
The petitioner’s case was that he was also entitled for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 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.
The Court said that in a welfare State, the hallmark in the action of the executive and legislature is the principle of equality embodied under 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 relied on D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, wherein a Constitution Bench 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 equality enshrined in the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Court said that the stand taken by the State and the authorities concerned that the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years will be applicable to the such Veterinary Officers under Manipur Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Service was without any substance, as the Medical Officers and Veterinary Officers working in the Autonomous District Councils are also given the same benefit of extended age of retirement from service.
Therefore, the Court held that the exclusion of the case of the petitioner, a Veterinary Officer working in the Manipur Zoological Garden, was without any valid reason and the absence of Cabinet decision did not satisfy the twin test propounded in DS Nakara case (supra) and the same cannot be presumed to be an intelligible differentia with regard to the object of classification.
[Dr. Laishram Saratchandra Singh v. State of Meghalaya, 2024 SCC OnLine Mani 197, Decided on: 05-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate Y. Nirmolchand, Advocate L. Raju
For the respondent: Govt. Adv. Th. Sukumar
Buy Constitution of India HERE
