[2025:RJ-JP:31460-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9910/2025 1. Dr. Sukh Ram S/o Sh. Nathi Singh, Aged About 66 Years, R/o H.No. C-79, Girish Vihar Colony, Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321001. 2. Dr. Suresh Chanda Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Sahay Sharma, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Krishna Colony, Priyanka Gas Agency Ke Peeche, Hindaun City, Karauli, Rajasthan- 322230. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Department of Ayurved, Government of Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 3. State of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary, Department of Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikita, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. The Director, Pension Department, Rajasthan Government, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhuvnesh Tiwari For Respondents No.1 and 4 For Respondents No.2 and 3 : : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG with Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, AAAG and Ms. Sunita Meena, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 13/08/2025 1. Issue notice. [2025:RJ-JP:31460-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-9910/2025] 2. Ms. Mahi Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 4. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3. 3. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has no qualms with regard to passing the order on similar terms as for the judgment passed by this Court in Bunch of cases with lead case being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13496/2021 (Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 13.07.2022. 4. However, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the present petition has been filed by the petitioners after having attained the age above 62 years, claiming that they should have been allowed to work upto the age of 62 years. He, therefore, submits that the petitioners ought not be granted the actual benefits for the period between 60 to 62 years. 5. Having considered the submissions made above, we hold that the petitioners ought to have been allowed to continue upto the age of 62 years and their retirement age ought to have been 62 years as has held by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13496/2021 (Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected writ petitions (supra). 6. However, we are inclined to accept the contentions raised by learned Additional Advocate General that actual benefits are not required to be paid to the petitioners who have approached the Court after much delay. They would, therefore, be entitled to only notional benefits for the period from 60 to 62 years. Their pension [2025:RJ-JP:31460-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-9910/2025] however shall be notionally fixed, as if they retired at the age of 62 years by granting them notional benefits of increments, their last pay would accordingly be calculated and the pension would accordingly be revised. They would of course be entitled to the arrears of revised pension from 62 years onward. The arrears shall be calculated as directed above and released to the petitioners expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. 7. The present writ petition is accordingly allowed as above. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J AMIT/41