[2025:RJ-JP:37237-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13907/2025 1. Dr. Chhitar Mal Sharma S/o Prabhu Dayal Sharma, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Baragaon, Karauli, Rajasthan 2. Dr. Kanhaiyalal Sharma S/o Shri Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Surana Press Vali Gali, Nehru Colony, Falna, Phalna(Rural), Pali, Rajasthan. 3. Dr. Rajendra Kumar Bharadwaj S/o Shri Mohan Lal Bharadwaj, Aged About 67 Years, R/o F-72, Shankar Marg, Banipark, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners 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, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 15/09/2025 1. Issue notice to the respondents. [2025:RJ-JP:37237-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-13907/2025] 2. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of respondents. 3. The issue raised in the present writ petition is no more res-integra and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Sukh Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 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. In view of the above judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Dr. Sukh Ram Vs. State of [2025:RJ-JP:37237-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-13907/2025] Rajasthan & Ors., the present Civil Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed in the aforesaid terms mutatis mutandis. 5. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/11