Jagatpura Jaipur, Rajasthan v. Akhil Arora, Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of

Judgment

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 Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Hemant Kumar Gera, Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

Smt. Poonam, Principal Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

5. Sawan Kumar Chayal, Deputy Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

6. Dr. Anand Kumar Sharma, Director, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer. ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 587/2024 Dr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra Son Of Shri Shiv Kumar Mishra, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of 353-C Katewa Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

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 [2025:RJ-JP:35609-DB] (2 of 8) [CCP-257/2024] Secretary, Department Of Finance (Rules Division), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Hemant Kumar Gera, Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Smt. Poonam, Principal Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

5. Sawan Kumar Chayal, Dy. Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

6. Rajrani Yadav, Director, Homeopathic Chikitsa Vibhag, Ayush Bhavan, Sector-26, N.r.i. Circle, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1146/2024 Dr. Govind Narayan Sharma S/o Shri Ramniwas Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Peer Ka Kua, Sambhar, Jaipur (Rural), Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

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 Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Bhawani Singh Detha, Principal Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. Sawan Kumar Chayal, Dy. Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

5. Dr. Anand Kumar Sharma, Director, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1148/2024 ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:35609-DB] (3 of 8) [CCP-257/2024] Dr. Kailash Chandra Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, S/o Late Shri Maniram Sharma R/o Village Post- Patoda, Tehsil- Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

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 Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Dr. Krishna Kant Pathak, Principal Secretary, 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, Rajasthan.

5. Sawan Kumar Chayal, Dy. Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

6. Dr. Anand Kumar Sharma, Director, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

7. Devraj, Director, Directorate Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Near Amroodon Ke Baag, Jyoti Nagar, Lalkothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg with Mr. Ayush Agarwal 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 [2025:RJ-JP:35609-DB] (4 of 8) [CCP-257/2024] 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. 257/2024 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16762/2022.

2. This petition is filed pleading willful disobedience of order of this Court dated 25.11.2022 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16762/2022.

3. The operational part of order is reproduced below:- “Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors reported as 2021 SCC Online SC 540 and connected appeals, this Court has held below:- “It is not necessary for us to dwelve deep in the matter because this issue is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma &Ors (supra) and batch of cases where this issue was examined. While enhancing the age of retirement of Allopathic Doctors from 60 to 62 years, this enhancement had not taken place in respect of the class of Ayurvedic Doctors which resulted in filing of petitions before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held the classification unreasonable and the petitions were allowed. The matter was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the employer namely North Delhi Municipal Corporation. Their Lordships in the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as below:- “22. The common contention of the appellants before us is that classification of AYUSH doctors and doctors under CHS in different categories is reasonable and permissible in law. This however [2025:RJ-JP:35609-DB] (5 of 8) [CCP-257/2024] Therefore, does not appeal to us and we are inclined to agree with the findings of the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court that the classification is discriminatory and unreasonable since doctors under both segments are performing the same function of treating and healing their patients. The only difference is that AYUSH doctors are using indigenous systems of medicine like Ayurveda, Unani, etc. and CHS doctors are using Allopathy for tending to their patients. In our understanding, the mode of treatment by itself under the prevalent scheme of things, does not qualify as an intelligible such unreasonable differentia. classification and discrimination based on it would surely be inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution. The order of AYUSH Ministry dated 24.11.2017 extending the age of superannuation to 65 Years also endorses such a view. This extension is in tune with the notification of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 31.05.2016. 23. The doctors, both under AYUSH and CHS, render service to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish them. Therefore, no rational justification is seen for having different dates for bestowing the benefit of extended age of superannuation to these two categories of doctors. Hence, the order of AYUSH Ministry (F. No. D.14019/4/2016EI (AYUSH)) dated 24.11.2017 must be retrospectively applied from 31.05.2016 to all concerned respondent doctors, in the present appeals. All consequences must follow from this conclusion.” 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 applicable 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 enhanced 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 [2025:RJ-JP:35609-DB] (6 of 8) [CCP-257/2024] 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.” In view of the above, this petition also deserves to be allowed and accordingly the petition is allowed in terms of the order dated13.07.2022 passed in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. (supra) . As petitioner has not even attained the age of 60 years, the consequence of the allowing of the petition would be that the petitioner shall be continued in service till he attains the age of 62years.”

4. The brief facts are that the petitioners were working as Doctors with the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2022. The writ petition was filed claiming that the superannuation shall be at the age of sixty two years. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the order dated

13.07.2022 passed in case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected matters (DBCWP No.13496/2021). The State preferred an SLP against the order of the High Court in which interim protection was granted. The SLP was dismissed on 30.01.2024. The petitioner on

05.02.2024 filed a representation for reinstatement in compliance with the directions of this Court. On 12.03.2024, the present contempt petition was filed. Vide order dated 11.11.2024, all the employees similarly situated to the petitioner were ordered to be reinstated subject to depositing the retiral benefits received at the age of sixty. The petitioner filed an application on 19.11.2024 seeking clarification and in the alternative stating that the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount. [2025:RJ-JP:35609-DB] (7 of 8) [CCP-257/2024]

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was delay in complying with the directions of this Court even after dismissal of the SLP on 30.01.2024. It is contended that the petitioner was ready to deposit the amount but the order was passed on 11.11.2024 and the petitioner was due to superannuated on 30.11.2024 and it was not possible to deposit the retiral benefits on such a short notice.

6. Learned Advocate General submits that the directions of this Court have substantially complied with and the decision-taking took time as it had ramification across the State.

7. The case in hand has a peculiar facts. The petitioner succeeded in the writ petition on 25.11.2022 wherein it was held that the petitioner shall superannuate on attaining the age of sixty two years. The order of this Court attained finality on 30.01.2024 on dismissal of the SLP preferred by the State. It took more than nine and half months for the respondents after dismissal of the SLP to implement the order of this Court. The reinstatement of the petitioner was subject to deposit of the retiral benefits received. It is apposite to note that the respondent decided on 11.11.2024 to reinstate the petitioners subject to pre-deposit. The petitioner attained the age of sixty two years on 30.11.2024. There is a time-gap of only nineteen days between the date of the order and date of superannuation of the petitioner.

8. In facts and circumstances, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation with the respondents within four weeks from today pleading the factual aspects of the case particularly short notice for deposition of the amount before reinstatement. In the eventuality of the petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:35609-DB] (8 of 8) [CCP-257/2024] filing a representation, the respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law taking into account the pecularity of the facts of each of the case.

9. It would be appreciated considering that the petitioners have already retired that the representation is considered and decide within six weeks of the receipt of the representation.

10. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law, if aggrieved of the decision. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/34,50, 55, 56