Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma Ors v. State of Rajasthan & Ors

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Deputy Secretary, Department Of Ayurveda, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Department Of Personnel, Through Principal Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Directorate Of Ayurveda, Thorugh Director, Department Of Ayurveda, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Movil Jeenwal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Saumitra Chaturvedi for Mr. Vishesh Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 08/04/2025

1. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unanai, Sidha and Homeopathy (Ayush) (for short referred as ‘Department of Ayurveda’) for retiring the petitioner w.e.f. 31.12.2022 after considering the age of superannuation as 60 years. He has furhter prayed that the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to continue his service till he attains the age of 62 years. [2025:RJ-JP:15753] (2 of 5) [CW-15070/2022]

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Government of Rajasthan has issued one notification dated 31.03.2016 amending Rule-56 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Rules of 1951’) and inserted a new proviso, whereby, the age of superannuation of MBBS degree holder officer of Rajasthan Medical & Health Service was enhanced from 60 to 62 years.

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that such benefits have not been extended to the medical officer who are working in Department of Ayurveda, as they are not holding the qualification mentioned in the notification dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Government of Rajasthan, which as per the petitioner is discriminatory and the petitioner is entitled for the same benefit with regard to retirement at the age of 62 years instead of 60 years.

4. On the other side, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State opposed the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and argued that action of the respondents is strictly in accordance with the Rule and the notification dated 31.03.2016 is explicitly clear and the prayer made by the petitioner is against the aforesaid notification, therefore, the writ filed by the petitioner may be rejected.

5. In support of his contention counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of ‘Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.’ (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13496/2021) decided on 13.07.2022 in which the aforesaid notification has been considered and even the Ayurvedic doctors [2025:RJ-JP:15753] (3 of 5) [CW-15070/2022] have also been given the same treatment and were held entitled to continue in service up to the age of 62 years. Relevant observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma is being quotted as Under:- “The aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court leaves no scope for arguments on the part of the respondents to defend their action of discrimination in the matter of fixing age of superannuation of Ayurvedic Doctors and it has to be consequently held that they are also entitled to continue in service till completion of age of 62 years, which is application in the case of Allopathic Doctors. It is brought to our notice and also placed on record that the age of superannuation of Allopathic Doctors was enahnced from 60 to 62 years w.e.f. 31.03.2016. While some of the petitioners are still working, some of the petitioners have retired after attaining the age of 60 years after the issuance of notification enhancing age of retirement from 60 to 62 years in respect of Allopathic Doctors. All those petitioners, who have so retired after 31.03.2016, shall be deemed to have continued in service upto 62 years. This will require the respondents authority to pass necessary orders treating them in service till attaining the age of 62 years in individual cases with consequential benefits of continuity of service. All other consequential action would also be required to be taken which include refixation of pension and other benefits. Those, who have been superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years, but have not completed 62 years of age, be reinstated in service forthwith.” It has been further informed that judgment dated

13.07.2022 of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma (supra) was unsuccessfully challenged [2025:RJ-JP:15753] (4 of 5) [CW-15070/2022] by the State Government before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where judgment of Division Bench has been confirmed and thereafter even the Review Petition preferred by the State has been rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, under these circumstances where notification dated

31.03.2016 has already been interpreted favourably to the advantage of the petitioner.

6. Counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the certain judgements passed by the Division Bench of this court based upon aforesaid judgment of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma which are as under:- (i) Dr. Gopal Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17242/2024) decided on 13.12.2024. (ii) Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16357/2024) decided on 21.10.2024. (iii) Suresh Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9182/2024 along with other connected matters) decided on 18.10.2024. (iv) Dr. Mahendra Singh Jakhar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2949/2024) decided on

28.02.2024.

7. Considered the material on record and heard the arguments advanced by both the parties.

8. Since the above notification has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court and even the Medical Officers of the Department of Ayurveda, have been held entitled to continue in service till the age of 62 years, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. No different treatment [2025:RJ-JP:15753] (5 of 5) [CW-15070/2022] can be given to the petitioner and he is also entitled for the same relief, which has been given to the other similar situated person.

9. The writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner is hereby allowed in the following manner:- The petitioner shall be treated to have continued in service till the age of 62 years and as during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of 60 years w.e.f. 31.12.2022, therefore, the petitioner is held entitled to get all the benefits up to the age of 62 years and he will be entitled for all consequential benefits including continuity in service, refixation of pay and his pension shall also accordingly be revised and the arrears shall also be given to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of this order.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of above relief. Stay application, pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. NEERU/315 (ANAND SHARMA),J