Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040016752025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/482/2025 Arunachal Pradesh Veterinarian Association and Anr represented by its president Dr Nyakar Taipodia, presently serving as Deputy Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, Veterinary and Dairy Development, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh.2: Dr Dagge Riba Age: Occupation : Son o Late Yidak Riba permanent resident of Dali Village PO and PS Basar Leparada District Arunachal Pradesh and presently serving as District Veterinary Officer Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Secretary Finance Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Administrative Reforms and Training Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Secretary Age: 0 Page No.# 2/7 Occupation : (AHV) Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Advocate for the Petitioner : Rintu Saikia, D Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate,Pankaj Borah,Mindo Taso,Idak Bam,Ligam Nochi Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 10.03.2026 Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Arunachal Pradesh and Mr. L. Perme, learned Standing Counsel for the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, who represents respondent No.4. 2. The grievance of the petitioners, briefly stated, is that they are members of the Arunachal Pradesh Veterinarian Association, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Having completed the requisite degree in the field of Veterinary Science, they are serving under the Veterinary Department of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, therefore, they are entitled to be considered for enhancement of retirement age from 60 years to 62 years, similar to the Specialists and General Duty Medical Officers working under the State Government. Although a proposal for enhancement of the age of superannuation was initiated, the same came to be negated by the Department of Administrative Reforms on 12.12.2023 [Annexure-IX (A)]. Page No.# 3/7 3. Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel, drawing the attention of this Court to the said decision submits that the Department of Administrative Reforms has taken a decision not to give the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years solely on the basis of comparison with other North-Eastern States, except for the State of Manipur. He submits that due to the decision taken by the Administrative Reforms Department, the matter could not be placed before the State Cabinet, thereby depriving the members of the petitioners’ association of their right to be placed at par with other similarly situated persons working under the Health Department of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh as Specialists and General Duty Medical Officers. 4. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that although the respondent No. 3, in their affidavit-in-opposition filed on 27.01.2026, has given a detailed explanation as to why the members of the petitioners’ association cannot be given the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation, such justification is not discernible from the decision taken by the Department of Administrative Reforms on 12.12.2023. In the said decision, the sole ground for rejecting the prayer for enhancement of the superannuation age was the comparison with other neighbouring States. He submits that under the circumstances, the decision taken should be interfered with by this Court. 5. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that comparison ought to be drawn not only with the counterparts of the members of the petitioners’ association in other States, but also within the State itself, where the General Duty Medical Officers, Dental Officers and AYUSH doctors have been given the benefit of superannuation at the age of 62 years. He submits that the recommendation of the Central Pay Commission (CPC) should also be taken into Page No.# 4/7 account, since the State does not have its own Pay Commission and admittedly follows the Central Pay Commission. Therefore, taking all these factors into account, the members of the petitioners’ association have a right to be treated at par with other similarly situated employees, and similar benefits should be extended to them. Failure to do so would amount to an infringement of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that, in fact, on a similar issue, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh decided in favour of Veterinary doctors of the State by holding that they are also entitled to enhancement of the age of retirement at par with Allopathic doctors and AYUSH doctors. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel relies upon the case of Dr. O.P. Singh & Ors., v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2025 (2) JLJ 532. 6. The learned Senior Counsel submits that a similar issue had also arisen before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, where it was held that Ayurvedic doctors covered under AYUSH are also entitled to the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years, similar to Allopathic doctors. Against the said decision, the North Delhi Municipal Corporation approached the Hon’ble Apex Court, and the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal by holding that the classification sought to be projected by the Municipal Corporation was not based on an intelligible differentia and, therefore, amounted to unreasonable classification and discrimination, which is inconsistent with the equality clause under the Constitution of India. In support of the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors., reported in (2021) 17 SCC 642. Page No.# 5/7 7. Mr. L. Perme, learned Standing Counsel for the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department submits that the Department, in fact, supports the cause projected by the petitioners’ Association. He submits that it was the Minister-in- charge of the Veterinary Department who had moved the file for consideration and placement before the appropriate authority. However, in view of the decision arrived at by the Department of Administrative Reforms, the proposal did not find favour for being considered and being put-up before the competent authority, i.e., the State Cabinet. he, therefore, submits that under the circumstances, this Court may consider the matter and pass appropriate orders as it deems fit and proper. 8. Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the State Government is well within its competence to decide the age of superannuation of its employees. He submits that all matters relating to employment or the services of government employees are to be routed through the Department of Administrative Reforms, which examines the same and thereafter decides whether the matter should be taken forward or not. In this connection, the learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the State Government has framed the Arunachal Pradesh Rules of Executive Business, 1987, which is relied upon for taking decisions insofar as the services of employees are concerned. He further submits that the State Government does not have a Pay Commission of its own and, therefore, relies upon the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission. However, the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission is not binding upon the State Government and the latter adopts the Central Pay Commission with suitable modifications as may be considered appropriate for the State. The learned Additional Advocate General also submits that the stand of the Government has Page No.# 6/7 been clearly highlighted in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same should be dismissed. 9. Submissions made by the rival parties have been duly considered. 10. The State, no doubt, is entitled to take a decision as regards the service conditions of its employees. However, the fact remains that such a decision should be taken by taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances connected with the issue, which, in fact, has been pointed out by the respondents themselves in paragraph No. 5 of the counter-affidavit. It however, appears that a decision was taken not to extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation for Veterinary doctors through the impugned decision dated 12.12.2023 of the Department of Administrative Reforms by drawing a comparison with other States of the North-East, excluding the Manipur. In other words, the process of embarking upon an exercise of due consideration by taking into account the counterparts of the members of the petitioners’ Association in the Health Department, particularly with regard to the nature of duties performed, the criticality of the services, the professional qualifications etc., amongst others, appears to have not been done before arriving at the impugned decision. 11. In this regard, the decision of the Apex Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation (supra) and also that of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dr. O.P. Singh & Ors. (supra) are found to be relevant, considering the cause projected by the members of the petitioners’ Association. Page No.# 7/7 12. Therefore, upon due consideration, this Court is of the considered view that the grievance projected by the petitioners and the claim for enhancement of their age of superannuation requires to be properly considered by revisiting the issue and taking into account all relevant factors, including the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission, which admittedly are applied in the State in a modified form. The State respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the case of the members of the petitioners’ Association in terms of the observations made hereinabove and to take a decision in the matter within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant