[2025:RJ-JP:16340-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5524/2025 Dr. Magan Das Vaishnava S/o Narayan Das Vaishnava, R/o 227, Sadar Bazar Bagana, Rajsamand, Rajasthan, 313331 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Ayurveda (Ayush) Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Ayurveda And Bhartiyachikitsa (Ayush), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Dy. Secretary, Department Of Ayurveda And Bhartiyachikitsa (Ayush) Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 5. Director Ayurveda, Directorate Of Ayurveda, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuraag Sharma on behalf of Mr. Rishabh Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG assisted by Mr. Samee Khan HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 17/04/2025 1. Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of respondents on advance copy. 2. After the order was passed by this Court earlier on 20.09.2024 in another petition, new developments have been [2025:RJ-JP:16340-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-5524/2025] brought to the notice of this Court, one of them regarding dismissal of the Review Petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court filed in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma on 15.10.2024, as stated at the bar by learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed before this Court order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Pyare Lal Meena & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.10560/2024), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that there is no stay on the judgment of the High Court and further that in the event the outstanding towards salary has not been paid, the same shall be cleared within a period of one week. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has retired and crossed the age of 62 years as on date. 4. In view of the above developments, we need not keep this petition pending and same is also finally disposed off in terms of order passed earlier by this Court in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected matters (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13496/2021), decided on 13.07.2022. As the petitioner has retired and crossed the age of 62 years, he shall be deemed to have continued in service upto 62 years. This will require the respondents-authority to pass necessary orders treating them in service till attaining the age of 62 years in individual cases with consequential benefits of continuity of service. All other [2025:RJ-JP:16340-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-5524/2025] consequential action would also be required to be taken which include refixation of pension and other benefits. (ANAND SHARMA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/6