Allowed¶24

Dr. Pradeep Kumar S/O Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Oct 2025CW/15491/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retirement age 62 years doctors Rajasthan; notional benefits for 60-62 years; pension notionally fixed; arrears of revised pension within three months; res integra; coordinate bench precedent; Dr. Sukh Ram D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9910/2025; Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13496/2021; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15491/2025; State of Rajasthan.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in terms of the order in Dr. Sukh Ram (supra): retirement age of 62 years; only notional benefits for the period 60-62 years; pension notionally fixed as if retired at 62 years; arrears of revised pension from 62 years onward to be released expeditiously, preferably within three months. All pending applications stand disposed of. ¶24

Dr. Pradeep Kumar S/O Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15491/2025

¶3

Dr. Pradeep Kumar S/o Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG with Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, AAAG, Ms. Sunita Meena, AGC & Mr. Aakash

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

¶10

Order

¶11

14/10/2025

¶12

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy is no longer res integra as it has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition

¶13

No. 9910/2025 (Dr. Sukh Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan

¶14

& Ors.), decided on 13.08.2025. The order dated 13.08.2025 is reproduced below:-

¶15

"1. Issue notice.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CW-15491/2025]

¶20

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.

¶21

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).

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

In light of such joint submission made by learned counsel for both the parties, the present writ petition is also allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Dr. Sukh Ram (supra).

¶25

All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶26

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J

¶27

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶28

SUDHEER/01

Dr. Pradeep Kumar S/O Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Pradeep Kumar S/O Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Rajasthan through Secretary Vs M/S Ganesh Shankar Pandey and Company

Mkc Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Union of India

Kiran Balotiya D/O Prahalad Balotiya Vs the State of Rajasthan

The Union of India Vs No. 4154626 Ex Sep Net Ram S/O Shri Chatu Ram

The Union of India Vs No. 2847844 Ex Sep (Reservist) Maha Singh S/O Shri Jora Ram

Amit Rohida S/O Shri Bherulal Vs State of Rajasthan