[2025:RJ-JP:16050-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5023/2025 1. Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma S/o. Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Ashok Vihar Vistar, Gopalpura Bypass, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Dr. Sunita Gupta W/o. Shri Ravi Shankar Goyal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Shubham Hospital, Ram Mandir Road, Opposite Govt. Hospital, Model Town First, Ganganagar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Finance (Rule Division) Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Principal Secretary, Department of Medical & Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 4. Director (PH), Medical & Health Services (Group II), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Akshay Yadav Advocate on behalf of Mr. Bharat Yadav Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Advocate General assisted by Ms. Dhriti Laddha Advocate, Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma Advocate and Mr. Tanay Goyal Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 15/04/2025 1. Today when the case comes up for consideration, learned Advocate General would submit that the State is contemplating to [2025:RJ-JP:16050-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-5023/2025] approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition to assail the order passed in the case of Dr. Banshidhar Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1393/2024 and other cases. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the issue as to whether the doctors (Dentist) holding degree of BDS are entitled to parity of treatment with the doctors (MBBS) insofar as age of retirement is concerned, is no longer res integra and stands concluded by order dated 26.02.2024 passed in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5821/2023). 3. We find that the said order decided the aforesaid issue. Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan was also a BDS doctor. Present petitioners are also BDS doctors, therefore, the issue appears to be squarely covered by the order dated 26.02.2024. 4. Learned Advocate General, at this stage, would submit that the Coordinate Bench has not examined the specific ground taken by the State that differentiation in age of retirement is based on intelligible differentia, as the age of doctors holding MBBS degree was increased from 60 to 62 years to address the issue of lack of Allopathic doctors. He would further submit that the Division Bench has only recorded the submissions made in the rejoinder regarding almost identical vacancy position of MBBS doctors as well as BDS doctors. However, it is submitted that issue has not been gone into. 5. Upon being asked as to whether any review petition is preferred against order dated 26.02.2024 passed in the case of [2025:RJ-JP:16050-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-5023/2025] Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan (supra), it is stated that so far no such petition has been filed. 6. Learned Advocate General would also highlight that the order passed by Coordinate Bench is based mainly on the verdict in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. C.W.P. No.13496/2021), wherein the State had filed SLP which was dismissed but thereafter a review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court which is pending consideration. 7. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that order dated 26.02.2024 passed in the case of Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan (supra) stands as on the day. Therefore, this petition also deserves to be allowed on similar lines as the order passed in the case of Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan (surpra). 8. Accordingly, the petitioners are declared entitled to continue in service till attaining the age of 62 years. Any orders contrary to the same are required to be withdrawn by the respondent authorities with immediate effect. 9. With the above observations, the petition stands allowed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ MANOJ NARWANI-DIVYA /238