DR. MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA S/O BANSHIDHAR SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/1263/2025 · 2025-02-21
Inderjeet Singh, Shubha Mehta
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3394 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3394 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:7846-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1263/2025
1. Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma S/o Banshidhar Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Ga-15, Bhawan Nagar, Radhakrishna Mandir, Murlipura, Rajasthan. 302039.
2. Dr. Om Prakash S/o Madan Lal Sharma, Aged About 64 Years, R/o 57, Ward No. 7 Joshiyo Ka Mohalla, Kishangarh Renwal, Bagawas, Jaipur, 303603.
3. Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Anant Lal Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 26, Basant Vihar Colony, Ward No. 22, Jaipur Road, Daulat Shah Dargah Ke Pass, Chomu, Rajasthan. 303702.
4. Dr. Sushil Kumar Dotoliya S/o Jagdish Narayan Dotoliya, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Brahmana Ka Mohalla, Bilochi, Jaipur, Amber, Rajasthan, 303805.
5. Dr. Pooran Mal Sharma S/o Prabhu Dayal Sharma, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Brahmano Ka Mohalla P.o. Niwana, Distt. Jaipur, 303804.
6. Dr. Nawal Kishore Sharma S/o Radheyshyam Sharma, Aged About 64 Years, R/o New Colony, Sambhariya Road, Kanota, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 303012.
7. Dr. Harish Gahlot S/o Dr. Kalu Lal, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Opposite Bank Of Baroda, Nathdwara, Rajsamand, Rajasthan 313301.
8. Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi S/o Ramchandra Joshi, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, 55, Brahampuri Kapasan, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, 312202.
9. Dr. Yogeshwar Chobisa S/o Omkareshwar Chobisa, Aged About 68 Years, R/o 25, Shri Nagar, Gariyawas, Girwa, Udaipur, Rajasthan, 313001. ----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,
[2025:RJ-JP:7846-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-1263/2025] 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. Rishabh Khandelwal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Sunita Meena, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA
Order 21/02/2025
1. After the order was passed by this Court earlier on 20.09.2024 in another petition, new developments have been 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 & Ors. on 15.10.2024, as stated at the bar by
learned counsel for the petitioner.
2.
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 Rajashtan & 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
[2025:RJ-JP:7846-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-1263/2025] 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 petitioners further submitted that the petitioners have already retired from their service.
3. In view of the above developments, we need not keep this petition pending and same is also finally disposed of 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. The petitioners will be entitled to the same relief as was granted in the aforesaid cases, meaning thereby, the petitioners are entitled to reinstatement as they have not completed sixty-two years of age with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits to continue in service up to the age of sixty-two years.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Tushar/21