[2025:RJ-JP:35465-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13287/2025 1. Dr. Vishwesh Kumar Pancholi S/o Shri Ramkishor Pancholi, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 68/417, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Dr. Rameshwar Prasad Chhipa S/o Shri Lalluram Chhipa, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Kalyan Colony, Near Shiv Mandir, Krishna Kunj, Ajmer Road, Kekdi, Ajmer. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Ayurved, And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Dy. Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Director, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 04/09/2025 1. Issue notice to respondents. 2. Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Both the counsels are ad idem that the issue raised in the present petition has been finally decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Sukh Ram and Anr. Vs. State of [2025:RJ-JP:35465-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-13287/2025] Rajasthan and Ors. in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9910/2025 decided on 13.08.2025 which reads as under:- “1.Issue notice. 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 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.” 4. The present civil writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the same terms mutatis mutandis. 5. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J AVINASH GULERIA /9