[2025:RJ-JP:19943-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 153/2025 In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11977/2022 Dr. Omprakash S/o Shri Narayan Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Mukam-Jaswantpura, Tehsil- Srimadhopur, District - Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Akhil Arora, Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance (Rules Division), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance (Rules Division), Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Dr. Krishna Kant Pathak, Principal Secreary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 4. Bhawani Singh Detha, Principal Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 5. Sawan Kumar Chayal, Dy. Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 6. Dr. Anand Kumar Sharma, Director, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Goverment Of Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma on behalf of Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 12/05/2025 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the effect and operation of the order passed by this Court on 18.08.2022 had remained stayed because of the intervention by [2025:RJ-JP:19943-DB] (2 of 3) [CCP-153/2025] the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would submit that even after the SLP was dismissed on 30.01.2024, the petitioner was not reinstated on the ground of pendency of the review petition. He would submit that during the pendency of the review petition, the petitioner attained the extended age of superannuation i.e. 62 years on 30.09.2024. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in not reinstating the petitioner despite order of the Court, is contemptuous. 3. On petitioner’s own showing the order passed by this Court on 18.08.2022 had been assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it was stayed. Though SLP was dismissed on 30.01.2024, review was again filed which also remain pending. That appears to be the reason why the petitioner was not reinstated as the decision in the review petition was awaited. 4. Be that as it may, in these circumstances, we are not inclined to initiate any contempt proceeding. 5. However, in the changed circumstances, the respondents are required to treat the case of the petitioner as one who has now completed 62 years of age and cannot be effectively reinstated in service. Nevertheless, the benefit of similar orders passed in large number of cases including the order referred to in our order dated 18.08.2022, similar relief is to be granted to the petitioner in the manner that the authorities shall be obliged to pass necessary orders treating the petitioner in service till attaining the age of 62 years and will also grant all the consequential benefits of continuity in service which includes pay, parks and salary. It also requires consequential action of refixation of pension and other [2025:RJ-JP:19943-DB] (3 of 3) [CCP-153/2025] retiral benefits which are dependent upon the length of service and last pay certificate. 6. This contempt petition, at this stage, is disposed of. Rule stands discharged. 7. This order has been passed in the presence of learned State Counsel. The State Counsel shall communicate a copy of this order to the concerned authorities for due and proper compliance in letter and spirit. 8. This order shall be read along with the order dated 18.08.2022 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11977/2022 for the purposes of compliance. 9. If the order is not complied with within a reasonable period of three months, the petitioner would be at liberty to file fresh contempt petition. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ RAJAT/ANAND TANWAR/52