[2025:RJ-JP:40379-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14454/2025 1. Dr. Balkrishna Sharma Son Of Shri Ganesh Narayan Sharma, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 52, Dadudayal Colony, Near Radha Swami Nursery, V.t. Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Dr. Navratan Sharma Son Of Shri Ramprasad Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Plot No 71, Bhragu Nagar, Vidyut Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. Dr. Omprakash Sharma Son Of Shri Ramgopal Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of House No. 73,marudhar Kesari Nagar, Behind R. K.house,madanganj, Kishangarh, Ajmer, Rajasthan 4. Dr. Suresh Chandra Sharma Son Of Shri Hariprasad Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Village-Post- Pipalda, Tehsil-Mitrapura, Sawaimadhopur , Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat. 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 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samee Khan, AAAG with Ms. Sunita Meena, AGC & Mr. Akash HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 06/10/2025 1. Issue notice to the respondents. [2025:RJ-JP:40379-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-14454/2025] 2. Mr. Samee Khan, learned AAAG accepts notice on behalf of respondents. 3. Both the counsels are ad idem that the issue raised in this petition has finally been concluded 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 [2025:RJ-JP:40379-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-14454/2025] 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 this Court in the case of Dr. Sukh Ram (supra), the present Civil Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed in the aforesaid terms mutatis mutandis. 5. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/51