Allowed

Sajjan Lal Sharma Son of Shri Sukh Dev Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Oct 2025CW/14593/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a retired Ayurved department employee seeking the benefit of retirement at 62 years. Following the Division Bench decision in Dr. Sukh Ram's case and the earlier Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma judgment, the court allowed the petition mutatis mutandis with notional benefits for the 60-62 period.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed mutatis mutandis per Dr. Sukh Ram: notional benefits for 60-62 years, revised pension from 62 years with arrears within three months.

Sajjan Lal Sharma Son of Shri Sukh Dev… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14593/2025

¶3

Sajjan Lal Sharma Son Of Shri Sukh Dev Sharma, Aged About 64 Years, Residing At Ward No. 31, Near Deora School, Durga Colony, Fatehpur, Fatehpur Shekhawat, Sikar, Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

1. The Principal Secretary, Ayurved Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

1. The Director, Directorate Of Ayurveda, Ajmer.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma Advocate.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, AAAG
		Mr. Sunita Meena, AAAG
		Mr. Aakash Mewara Advocate.
		Ms. Epsa Nangalia Advocate.
		Mr. Aaditya Godara, AAAG &
		Mr. Rohan Mittal Advocate.

¶11

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order

¶12

10/10/2025

¶13

Issue notice to the respondents.

¶14

Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma & Mr. Aaditiya Godara, learned AAAG accept notice on behalf of respondents.

¶15

Both the counsels are ad idem that the issue raised in this petition has finally been concluded by this Court in the case of Dr. Sukh Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9910/2025 decided on 13.08.2025, which reads as under:-

¶16

“1.Issue notice.

¶17

2.Ms. Mahi Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 4. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CW-14593/2025]

¶20

General accepts notice on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3.

¶21

3.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.

¶22

4.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.

¶23

5.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 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).

¶24

6.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.

¶25

7.The present writ petition is accordingly allowed as above.”

¶26

In view of the above judgment passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Sukh Ram (supra) , the present Civil Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed in the aforesaid terms mutatis mutandis .

¶27

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

¶28

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J

¶29

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ

¶30

SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/28

Sajjan Lal Sharma Son of Shri Sukh Dev Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajjan Lal Sharma Son of Shri Sukh Dev 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

Mohammed Ilyas Khatri S/O Mohammad Iqbal Khatri Vs the State of Rajasthan

Preeti Vyas D/O Lt. Roop Kishor Vyas Vs Rajasthan High Court

Chief Manager Matayasa Nagar Depot Vs Om Prakash S/O Shri Vishambhar Dayal

Silver Square Corporation India Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer

Dr. Mahendra Singh S/O Sh. Ram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Raj through Dig Vs Baabji Iron Industries and Ors.