[2026:RJ-JP:17614] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7294/2026 Dr. Rajrani Yadav Daughter Of Shri Heeralal Bhartiya, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Shreefalam, Keshavpura, Rangbari Main Road, Kota, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Dy. Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Director, Homeopathic Chikitsa Vibhag, Ayush Bhavan, Sector-26, N.r.i. Circle, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta with Ms. Karishma Soni HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 27/04/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of rejection of leave dated 17.04.2026 (Annex.6). The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s services are continued beyond 60 years on the directions of this Court and the judgment of Division Bench has been challenged before the Supreme Court by the State Government and the said SLP is pending. The petitioner applied for leave without pay in order to travel to USA to meet with her daughter and the said application was [2026:RJ-JP:17614] (2 of 2) [CW-7294/2026] rejected since the SLP is pending, challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pendency of SLP is nothing to do with the consideration of application for grant of Extraordinary Leave. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on account of pendency of SLP, the application was rejected. 4. It is not the case of the respondents that the services of the petitioner are required and grant of leave affecting to discharge of duties. Considering the above facts and submissions, the pendency of SLP is nothing to do with the consideration of Extraordinary Leave, therefore, the impugned order dated 17.04.2026 (Annex.6), is required to be set aside. 5. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.04.2026 (Annex.6), is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant leave to the petitioner. 6. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J architp/2