Allowed

Dr. Ramprakash Sharma Son of Shri Girraj Sharan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Sept 2025CW/13539/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the retirement age for Ayurveda practitioners is 62 years, following prior precedent. Petitioners, who crossed age 60 without filing, were denied actual benefits for the 60-62 year period but granted notional fixation of pension and increments, with arrears payable from age 62 onwards.

What did the court decide?

Notional pension fixation and arrears from age 62; no actual benefits for 60-62 years.

Dr. Ramprakash Sharma Son of Shri Girraj… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13539/2025

¶3

Dr. Ramprakash Sharma Son Of Shri Girraj Sharan Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 276/2, Tanwar Colony, Alwar, Rajasthan

¶4

Dr. Mukesh Mohan Dadhich Son Of Shri Raghunandan Dadhich, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 120, Shopping Centre, Furniture Market, Kota

¶5

Dr. Babulal Meena Son Of Shri Tulsiram Meena, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Nainwa Road, Matunda Chouraha, Infront Of Balaji Mandir, Bundi, Rajasthan

¶6

Dr. Pyara Singh Son Of Shri Ramsingh, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of 72, Malviya Nagar, Behind Police Line, Bundi, Rajasthan

¶7

Dr. Satish Chandra Sharma Son Of Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of Meera Gate, Jawahar Colony, Behind Malanmasi Balaji, Bundi, Rajasthan

¶8

Dr. Surendra Kumar Son Of Shri Raghuveer Singh Gothwal, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 1-Kha, 29, Shivaji Park, Alwar, Rajasthan

¶9

Dr. Dinesh Chand Pandey Son Of Shri Jaidatta Pandey, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 112, Scheme No. 3, Basant Vihar, Alwar, Rajasthan

¶10

Dr. Gulab Chand Son Of Shri Ramdhani Ram, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Infront Of Rambhavan Dharamshala, Kotputli, Jaipur

¶11

----Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶14

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

¶15

Dy. Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶16

[CW-13539/2025]

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

Director, Homeopathic Chikitsa Vibhag, Ayush Bhavan, Sector-26, N.r.i. Circle, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG assisted by Ms. Sunita Meena, AGC

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

¶22

Order

¶23

09/09/2025

¶24

Issue notice.

¶25

Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶26

Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has no qualms with regard to passing the order on similar terms as for the judgment passed by this Court in Bunch of cases with lead case being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13496/2021 ( Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ) decided on 13.07.2022.

¶27

However, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the present petition has been filed by the petitioners after having attained the age above 62 years, claiming that they should have been allowed to work upto the age of 62 years. He, therefore, submits that the petitioners ought not be granted the actual benefits for the period between 60 to 62 years.

¶28

Having considered the submissions made above, we hold that the petitioners ought to have been allowed to continue upto the age of 62 years and their retirement age ought to have been

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[CW-13539/2025]

¶31

62 years as has held by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13496/2021 ( Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ) and other connected writ petitions ( supra ).

¶32

However, we are inclined to accept the contentions raised by learned Additional Advocate General that actual benefits are not required to be paid to the petitioners who have approached the Court after much delay. They would, therefore, be entitled to only notional benefits for the period from 60 to 62 years. Their pension however shall be notionally fixed, as if they retired at the age of 62 years by granting them notional benefits of increments, their last pay would accordingly be calculated and the pension would accordingly be revised. They would of course be entitled to the arrears of revised pension from 62 years onward. The arrears shall be calculated as directed above and released to the petitioners expeditiously preferably within a period of three months.

¶33

The present writ petition is accordingly allowed as above.

¶34

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶35

(SANJEET PUROHIT),J

¶36

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶37

HEENA/MAHIMA/11

Dr. Ramprakash Sharma Son of Shri Girraj Sharan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ramprakash Sharma Son of Shri Girraj Sharan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radheshyam Adopted Son of Lt. Shri Ram Niwas Vs Smt. Gopali Devi Daughter of Shri Ram Niwas Wife of Shri Damodar Prasad

State of Rajasthan Vs Mohan Singh S/O Ram Narayan Singh

The Union of India Vs No. 4151327 Sep Hanuman Singh S/O Shrikurda Ram

State of Rajasthan Vs Ajit Kumar Son of Shri Banshi Lal

Mithalal Bohra Son of Shri M.C. Bohra Vs Union of India

Smt. Ganga Devi Wife of Dev Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan