Post - Nagla Mai, Tehsil Nadbai, District- Bharatpur, Rajasthan v. Akhil Arora, Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance

Judgment

5. Versus ----Petitioner Shri Bhawani Singh Detha, Principal Secretary, Ayurved Department, Govt. Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.). Shri Akhil Arora, Principal/additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). Shri Savan Kumar Chayal, Deputy Secretary, Ayurved Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. Shri Aanand Sharma, Director, Directorate Of Ayurved, Rajasthan Ajmer. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Ayurved Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents Connected with D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 431/2024

Dr. Parmanand Son Of Shri Umed Singh, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Vpo Hantra, Tehsil Nadbai, district- Bharatpur, Rajasthan. Dr. Brahmanand Sharma S/o Shri Govind Prasad, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Adarsh Nagar Sector No.1, Bayana, District- Bharatpur, Rajasthan. Dr. Siyaram Indoliya S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Post - Nagla Mai, Tehsil Nadbai, District- Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus Akhil Arora, Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance (Rules Division), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance (Rules Division), Government Of Rajasthan, [2025:RJ-JP:35638-DB] (2 of 6) [CCP-11/2025] Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan Smt. Poonam, Principal Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan Sawan Kumar Chayal, Deputy Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan Dr. Anand Kumar Sharma, Director, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajasthan ----Respondents D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 309/2025

1. Kailash Chandra Sharma Son Of Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Village Post Aspura Via Ajeetgarh, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.) (Employee Id-Rjaj198801010810).

2. Mahesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Village Tarpura, Post Tarpura, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.) (Employee Id-Rjjj198823009965). ----Petitioners Versus

1. Dr. K. K. Pathak, Pr. Secretary To Government Depart- ment Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Govern- ment Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Shri Bhawani Singh Detha, Pr. Secretary To Govern- ment, Ayurved Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. Dr. Anand Kumar Sharma, Director, Ayurved Depart- ment, Government Rajasthan, Ajmer (Raj.).

4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pr. Secretary To Govern- ment, Ayurved Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg with Mr. Ayush Agarwal [2025:RJ-JP:35638-DB] (3 of 6) [CCP-11/2025] Mr. G.S. Gouttam Mr. Ajay Gupta with Ms. Sampti Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Sheetanshu Sharma & Mr. Tanay Goyal Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG with Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Ms. Sunita Meena, Mr. Aakash Mewara, Ms. Epsa Nangalia, Mr. Kartikeya Shukla & Ms. Kavita Sharma Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore & Mr. Aaditya Godara HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU 04/09/2025 Order

1. These petitions are decided by common order as the facts and issues involved are similar. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 11/2025 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7785/2024.

2. This contempt petition is filed pleading willful disobedience of order dated 18.10.2024 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9182/2024 and other connected matters.

3. Operational part of the order is reproduced below:- “In view of the above developments, we need not keep these petitions pending and same are also finally disposed off in terms of order passed earlier by this Court in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected matters (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13496/2021), decided on 13.07.2022. The [2025:RJ-JP:35638-DB] (4 of 6) [CCP-11/2025] petitioners will be entitled to the same relief as was granted in the aforesaid cases meaning thereby that they are entitled to continue with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits in service upto the age of 62 years, if they have not already attained the age of 62 years. In cases where the petitioners have already attained the age of 62 years, they will be entitled to all the consequential benefits including monetary benefits of salary as if they had continued in service upto the age of 62 years.”

4. The respondents have adopted the additional affidavit filed in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.462/2025 attaching the order dated 01.09.2025 wherein, it has been decided that the employees who had not attained the age of sixty two years and were to be reinstated but have voluntarily not joined shall not be paid the salary and benefits.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the reinstatement order dated 11.11.2024 imposed a condition of deposit of the entire retiral benefits. The contention is that the condition is in violation of the directions of this Court. It is averred that the amount paid to the petitioners shall ultimately become due on attaining the age of sixty two years and there was no question of depositing the amount back. Submission is that the petitioners were ready to join but shall not deposit the amount as per the order of 11.11.2024.

6. Learned Advocate General submits that there is substantial compliance of the directions of this Court. The petitioners after [2025:RJ-JP:35638-DB] (5 of 6) [CCP-11/2025] reinstatement shall not be entitled to retiral benefits received at the age of sixty years. Submission is that by non-compliance of the condition of deposit of the amount received, there is willful failure in joining.

7. In contempt petition, we need not to go into dispute that the petitioners had approached the respondents for joining or not. It is an admitted fact that even today the petitioners have neither deposited nor are ready to deposit the retiral benefits, in compliance of the order of 11.11.2024.

8. Another aspect to be considered is that till the age of attaining sixty two years the retiral benefits shall not accrue to the petitioners and there is no occasion for the petitioners to retain the retiral benefits received at the age of sixty years.

9. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court that the order of reinstatement dated 11.11.2024 was challenge in any proceeding.

10. From perusal of the directions of this Court, it is evident that the writ petitions were allowed with the directions that the petitioners shall be entitled to continue in service till the age of sixty two years with the consequential benefits. There is no relief granted to the petitioners that while continuing in service till the age of sixty two years they shall be entitled to receive the retiral benefits at the age of sixty years and thereafter retain it inspite of reinstatement.

11. No case is made out for willful disobedience of the directions of this Court.

12. The contempt petitions are dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:35638-DB] (6 of 6) [CCP-11/2025]

13. Notices are discharged.

14. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that inspite of the decision of 01.09.2025 of not to pay salary and the benefits for failure to comply the directions in the order, the petitioners shall entitle to notional benefit for two years.

15. The issue now raised is consequential to the decision taken vide order dated 11.11.2024. The petitioners are granted liberty to file representation with the respondents claiming the notional benefits for the intervening period for sixty years to sixty two years within six weeks.

16. In the eventuality of the representation being filed, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months, if possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

17. Needless to say that the petitioners shall at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law if aggrieved of the decision. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J RIYA/42, 59 & 60