ARAMBAM SOMARENDRO SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned 2 (two) Writ Appeals ('WAs' in plural and 'WA' in singular for the sake of convenience) are directed against an interim order dtd. 18/2/2026 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 dt. 18/2/2026 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 1/3/1966; that a Notification dtd. 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 and 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 and 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 and PR Dept., Government of Manipur; that thereafter, on 22/9/2018, Government of Manipur issued a Notification enhancing the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 with immediate effect but for officers of 'Manipur Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Service' ('MV and AHS'); that the writ appellant almost more than 6 (six) years later, sent a representation dtd. 28/2/2025 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 dtd. 28/2/2025, 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 dtd. 1/8/2025 inter- alia directing the 28/2/2025 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 and PR) disposed of the representation by a speaking order dtd. 24/10/2025 holding that writ appellant is working in RD and PR Dept. whereas the 22/9/2025 Notification increasing the superannuation age from 60 to 62 is only for MV and AHS Dept.; that thereafter, an order dtd. 2/1/2026 was made by the RD and PR Department saying that the writ appellant on attaining age of superannuation with effect from 28/2/2026 (A/N) will stand terminated; that assailing this 24/10/2025 order rejecting writ petitioner's representation dtd. 28/2/2025 and the 2/1/2026 order stating that the writ petitioner will attain superannuation on 28/2/2026 (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 2/1/2026 order of superannuation/termination on 28/2/2026; that in the interim order, Hon'ble Single Bench refused to suspend the operation of the 2/1/2026 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.