[2025:RJ-JP:36811-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13752/2025 1. Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma S/o-Late Girraj Prasad Sharma, Aged About 66 Years, R/o-B Block, Behind Senior Secondary School, jawahar Nagar, Vaidh Colony, Gangapurcity, Dist-Sawai Madhopur,raj. 2. Dr. Bhagwan Sahay Sharma S/o-Pyare Kishan Sharma, Aged About 69 Years, R/o-Brahman Mohalla, Khendiye, Gangapurcity, Dist -Sawai Madhopur,raj. 3. Dr. Gopal Prasad Sharma S/o-Kundan Lal Sharma, Aged About 66 Years, R/o-Parshuram Colony, Mahua Road Behind Reliance Petrol, hindaun City, dist-Karuli.raj. 4. Dr. Laddu Lal Sharma S/o-Ram Vilas Sharma, Aged About 69 Years, R/o- Ganesh Nagar, Near Idgah Moad, Gangapurcity, Dist- Sawai Madhopur ,raj. 5. Dr. Ram Khiladi Joshi S/o-Niranjan Lal Joshi, Aged About 63 Years, R/o-Vijay House, gandi Nagar, Ward No-36, near Kamla Hospital, Gangapurcity, dist-Sawai Madhopur, Raj. 6. Dr. Prahlad Kumar Sharma S/o-Lalu Ram Sharma, Aged About 66 Years, R/o-F.c.i Godwan, gangapurcity, Dist. Sawai Madhopur ,raj. 7. Dr. Satanand Sharma S/o-Bharosi Lal Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, R/o-Ganesh Mill, Ward No-38, behind Sharda School, Udae, Gangapurcity, Dist-Sawai Madhopur, Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance (Rules Division), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Principal Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Government Secretariat Jaipur. Of Rajasthan 3. The Deputy Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. Government 4. The Director, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag., [2025:RJ-JP:36811-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-13752/2025] Government Of Rajasthan Ajmer. 5. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Lalkothi Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Naveen Dhuwan For Respondents : Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG assisted by Ms. Sunita Meena Mr. Aditya Godara HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 11/09/2025 1. Issue notice to the respondents. 2. Mr. Bhuwnesh 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. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:36811-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-13752/2025] 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 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 RAHUL MIRKHANI/10