DR. RAJKUMAR GUPTA S/O SHRI TARACHAND GUPTA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/13012/2025 · 2025-08-29
Sanjeet Purohit, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 41014 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 41014 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:34585-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13012/2025 Dr. Rajkumar Gupta S/o Shri Tarachand Gupta, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 81, Shiv Vatika-A, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner 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 29/08/2025
1. Issue notice to the respondents. 2. Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, 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. Girja Shanker Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan &
[2025:RJ-JP:34585-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-13012/2025] Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10223/2025 decided on 22.07.2025 which reads as under:-
“1. Issue notice. 2. Mr. Samee Khan, AAAG appearing for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties are ad idem that the issue raised in the present writ petition stands finally adjudicated in the writ petitions decided 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 matters decided on 13.07.2022, wherein this Court had held as under:
“The
aforesaid
authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court leaves no scope for arguments on the part of the respondents to defend their action of discrimination in the matter of fixing age of superannuation of Ayurvedic Doctors and it has to be consequently held that they are also entitled to continue in service till completion of age of 62 years, which is applicable in the case of Allopathic Doctors. It is brought to our notice and also placed on record that the age of superannuation of Allopathic Doctors was enhanced from 60 to 62 years w.e.f. 31.03.2016.
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. The petitions are accordingly allowed.”
4. It is informed that the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court was the subject matter of challenging the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).14308- 14318/2022, which too was dismissed on 30.01.2024 and the Review Petition @ Diary No.11641/2024, filed by the
[2025:RJ-JP:34585-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-13012/2025] State of Rajasthan was also dismissed on 15.10.2024. Thus, we find that the judgment as quoted above has attained finality and the respondents are, therefore, bound to follow the same. 5. The present Civil Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed in the aforesaid terms mutatis mutandis.”
4. 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/10