[2025:RJ-JP:40381-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15208/2025 1. Dr. Ghanshyam Meiwal Son Of Shri Ram Kalyan Meiwal, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of B-134, Riddhi Siddhi Nagar, Kunhadi, Kota, Rajasthan 2. Dr. Deepak Shrivastava Son Of Shri Brij Kishor Shrivastava, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of A-178, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. Dr. Narendra Prasad Mathur Son Of Shri S.p. Mathur, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of 13, Amrit Nagar, Iskon Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 4. Dr. Raj Bahadur Singh Rathore Son Of Shri Zalam Singh Rathore, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 146. K-5, C-Scheme, Near Lal Mandir, Khatipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 5. Dr. Jai Kishan Sharma Son Of Shri Rekha Ram Sharma, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 120, Bhrigu Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 6. Dr. Bhanwar Singh Jadon Son Of Shri Bheem Singh Ji, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 265, Chand Bihari Nagar, Khatipura Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 7. Dr. Surendra Singh Taragi Son Of Shri Devi Singh Taragi, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of Banglow No. 5, Circular Road, Near Kundan Nagar Circle, Ajmer, Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The 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, Homeopathic Chikitsa Vibhag, Ayush Bhavan, Sector-26, N.r.i. Circle, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:40381-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-15208/2025] 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. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:40381-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-15208/2025] 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 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/53