HC orders retirement age benefit to veterinary officer
Source: Chronicle News Service

Imphal, July 09 2024: The Manipur High Court has ruled that veterinary officers cannot be excluded from the benefit of an enhanced retirement age, emphasising the right to equality.

The court struck down the state government's notification that differentiated between similarly situated veterinary officers regarding the age of superannuation, which was extended from 60 to 62 years.

Citing the landmark DS Nakara vs Union of India (1983) case, Justice A Guneshwar Sharma s Bench, on June 5, noted that any legislative or executive action violating the principle of equality must be struck down if it fails the twin tests of reasonable classification and a rational principle re-lated to the intended objective.

"The stance of the respondents that the benefit of an enhanced superannuation age is applicable only to employees of MV&AHS is baseless, as the same benefit has been extended to medical officers and veterinary officers of ADCs," the court stated.

It highlighted that in a welfare state, executive and legislative actions must embody the principle of equality as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

While classifications for the purpose of Article 14 are permissible, they must be reasonable and form a homogeneous group, ensuring no similarly situated individuals are excluded.

The case was filed by Dr Laishram Saratchandra Singh, a veterinary officer at Manipur Zoological Gardens, who sought to extend his service beyond 60 years, akin to other officers in the Manipur Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Service (MV&AHS) and medical and veterinary officers under six Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) in Manipur, whose retirement age was increased to62 years.

The State argued that there was no cabinet decision to extend the retirement age for veterinary officers at the Manipur Zoological Gardens, hence no automatic extension could be granted to the petitioner.

However, the court rejected this argument, ruling that the benefit given to medical and veterinary officers under the ADCs should also apply to the petitioner.

The court held that excluding the petitioner on the grounds of an absent cabinet decision failed the reasonable classification test outlined in the DS Nakara case and did not constitute an intelligible differentia concerning the classification objective.

Consequently, the court ordered the petitioner's retirement age to be extended to 62 years, thereby allowing the writ petition.

Comment