[2025:RJ-JP:47899-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15404/2025 Dr. Dwarika Prasad Sharma S/o Sh. Yadram Sharma, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Vill. Pasoda, Teh. Roopwas, Distti. Bharatpur Rajasthan- 321404 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Department Of Ayurved, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary, Department Of Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikita, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. The Director Pension Department, Rajasthan Government, Jyoti Nagar Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Bhuvnesh Tiwari, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG with Ms.Sunita Meena, Adv. & Ms.Epsa Nangalia, Adv. for Nos.2 & 3 Ms.Mahi Yadav, AAG with Mr.Rohan Mittal, Adv. for Nos.1 & 4. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 26/11/2025 1. Issue notice to the respondents. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr.Bhuwnesh Sharma accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3 and learned Additional Advocate General Ms.Mahi Yadav accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 & 4. 3. Learned counsel for the parties are at ad idem that the issue raised in this petition is finally adjudicated by this Court in a bunch [2025:RJ-JP:47899-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-15404/2025] of cases with the lead case of Dr.Sukh Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9910/2025 decided on 13.08.2025 wherein the Court held as under:- “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. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of order dated 13.08.2025 passed in the case of Dr. Sukh Ram (supra). The observations/directions made in the case of Dr. Sukh Ram (supra) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case too. 5. All pending applications stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA), J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Himanshu Soni/15