[2025:RJ-JP:28862-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 396/2025 1. Dr. Ramji Lal Sharma S/o Shri Shambhu Lal Sharma, Aged About 61 Years, R/o 44, Printers Nagar 2Nd, Sitabari, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Dr. Anand Bihari Sharma S/o Shri Ramkalyan Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Post Aandhi, Tehsil Aandhi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. Dr. Pawan Kumar Dadheech S/o Shri Ramavtaar Shastri, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 15, Govindbari, Brahmpuri, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Ayurved, And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Shri Bhawani Singh Detha, Principal Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Shri Sawan Kumar Chayal, Dy. Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 4. Shri Anand Kumar Sharma, Director Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Neetu Bhansali on behalf of Mr. Amit Jindal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma with Mr. Samee Khan on behalf of Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, Additional Advocate General HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 30/07/2025 1. Petitioners are alleging contempt of order dated 29th February 2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court. [2025:RJ-JP:28862-DB] (2 of 3) [CCP-396/2025] 2. According to petitioners, by said order respondents were directed to reinstate petitioners who had superannuated on attaining age of 60 years but not completed age of 62 years. 3. In this petition, it is averred that petitioners had made representation to respondents to comply with order dated 29th February 2024 and only on 11th November 2024 respondents ordered petitioners to be reinstated in service and in light thereof, petitioners rejoined their duties. 4. Ms. Neetu Bhansali, counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners were not being paid back wages and no order has been passed treating petitioners in service with consequential benefits of continuity of service. 5. Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, counsel for respondents-State submits that there was no willful intention to disobey orders passed by the Court but the process took time and petitioners have been reinstated. At the same time, counsel also submits that order does not specifically say that petitioners should be treated in service till attaining age of 62 years and consequential benefits of continuity of service should be given. 6. Though we would not entirely agree with interpretation by the counsel of order dated 29th February 2024, this being a contempt proceeding we would give respondents benefit of doubt and would not hold them in willful disobedience of order passed by this Court. Nevertheless, this Court in its order dated 29th February 2024 has followed what Apex Court did in Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [SLP (C) No. (s) 14308-14318/2022], by which Apex Court confirmed order [2025:RJ-JP:28862-DB] (3 of 3) [CCP-396/2025] passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 13th July 2022. In that order, last paragraph reads as under:- “While some of the petitioners are still working, some of the petitioners have retired after attaining the age of 60 years after the issuance of notification enhancing age of retirement from 60 to 62 years in respect of Allopathic Doctors. All those petitioners, who have so retired after 31.03.2016, 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 consequential action would also be required to be taken which include refixation of pension and other benefits. Those, who have been superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years, but have not completed 62 years of age be reinstated in service forthwith.” 7. Above quoted portion makes it clear that reinstated Doctors should be treated as in service till attaining age of 62 years with consequential benefits of continuity of service. It also says all other consequential action would also be required to be taken which include re-fixation of pension and other benefits. 8. In the circumstances, though we are not holding respondents to be in contempt, we direct respondents to strictly comply with portion quoted above because that is what was intended by this Court when it disposed main petition. 9. This has to be complied with on or before 31st August 2025. Non-compliance of this direction will be viewed as willful disobedience of order. 10. Petition disposed. Contempt notices are discharged. (ANAND SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.Gandhi-Daksh/7