Allowed¶24

Dr. Laxman Parsad Sharma S/O Jeevan Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Jan 2026CW/2/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2/2026; Dr. Laxman Parsad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (Ayush/Ayurveda departments; Director, Ayurveda, Ajmer); retirement age parity Ayurvedic doctors vs Allopathic/MBBS doctors; AYUSH doctors superannuation; continuance beyond retirement age without regular pay and allowances; para-10 of SLP(C) No.9563 of 2024 State of Rajasthan v. Anisur Rahman; reference to larger Bench; writ petition allowed; Justice Sameer Jain; decision dated 15/01/2026; DEEPAK/18.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in terms of para-10 of the judgment in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Anisur Rahman (SLP(C) No.9563 of 2024); pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶24

Dr. Laxman Parsad Sharma S/O Jeevan Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed in terms of para-10 of the judgment in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Anisur Rahman (SLP(C) No.9563 of 2024); pending applications, if any, disposed of.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an Ayurvedic doctor, is entitled to parity with Allopathic (MBBS) doctors in retirement age, so that his case can be disposed of in terms of para-10 of the order in SLP(C) No.9563 of 2024 (State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Anisur Rahman), under which States may continue indigenous-systems practitioners beyond their specified superannuation age up to the MBBS retirement age.

¶21

Court's answer

The present writ petition is allowed in terms of para-10 of the judgment in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Anisur Rahman (SLP(C) No.9563 of 2024), i.e., on the footing that the State may continue the Ayurvedic practitioner beyond his specified superannuation age up to the MBBS retirement age without regular pay and allowances, with entitlement to pay and allowances for the continued/enhanced period if the larger Bench decides in favour of AYUSH doctors.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), Sameer Jain, J. (15/01/2026): Writ petition by Dr. Laxman Parsad Sharma, an Ayurvedic doctor aged about 65 years, against the State of Rajasthan (Departments of Ayurveda/Ayush and Personnel, and Director, Ayurveda, Ajmer), seeking parity of retirement age with Allopathic (MBBS) doctors. Counsel relied on the order in Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563 of 2024, State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Anisur Rahman, wherein parity between Allopathic and Ayurvedic doctors on retirement age was maintained while the question was referred to a larger Bench; para-10 of that order (reproduced in this judgment) permits States to continue practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine beyond their specified superannuation age up to the MBBS retirement age without regular pay and allowances, entitling them to pay and allowances for the continued/enhanced period if the larger Bench decides in favour of AYUSH doctors. The respondents' counsel (AAG) did not controvert the submission. Held: the writ petition is allowed in terms of para-10 of Anisur Rahman (supra); pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:1540]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2/2026

¶4

Dr. Laxman Parsad Sharma S/o Jeevan Lal Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 2 K 20, Housing Board, Keshav Nagar Baswara Rural, Banswara Rajasthan 327001.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Ayurveda (Ayush) Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Ayurveda And Bhartiya Chikitsa (Ayush), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Dy. Secretary, Department Of Ayurveda And Bhartiya Chikitsa (Ayush), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

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

¶11

Director, Ayurveda, Directorate Of Ayurveda, Ajmer.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rishabh Khandelwal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma,AAG

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶15

Judgment

¶16

15/01/2026

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is Ayurvedic Doctor. At the outset, learned counsel has relied upon the ratio encapsulated in Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563 of 2024 titled State of Rajasthan and Ors. Versus Anisur Rahman . It is submitted that by the said judgment, parity

[2026:RJ-JP:1540]

[CW-2/2026]

(2 of 2)

has been maintained qua the retirement age of Allopathic Doctors and the Ayurvedic Doctors, however, for further consideration the matter is referred to the larger Bench. It is submitted that the present matter can be disposed of in light of para-10 of the abovesaid judgment, which is reproduced as below:

¶22

"10. In the meanwhile, the States and the authorities would be entitled to either continue the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine, even after the age of superannuation specified for them till the age of superannuation provided for MBBS doctors, without the benefit of regular pay and allowances. Eventually, if the larger Bench holds in favour of the AYUSH doctors, entitling them for enhancement in retirement age, the practitioners would be entitled to avail pay and allowances during the period they were continued. However, if they are not allowed to continue by virtue of this order, still they would be entitled to avail the pay and allowances for the enhanced period, if the issue is held in their favour. If the State Government permits such continuance and the individual doctors do not take up such assignment without regular pay and allowances, they would be treated as retired and the fate of this reference will be inconsequential to them."

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG is unable to controvert the said submissions.

¶24

In light of the same, the present writ petition is allowed in

¶25

terms of para-10 of the Anisur Rahman (supra).

¶26

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶27

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶28

DEEPAK/18

Dr. Laxman Parsad Sharma S/O Jeevan Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Laxman Parsad Sharma S/O Jeevan Lal Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samundra Singh Daroga Son of Khan Singh Daroga Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Rajesh Meena S/O Sohan Singh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Akshat Saxena S/O Shalendra Saxena Vs State of Rajasthan

Manoj Sharma S/O Shri Kedar Nath Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dushyant Singh S/O Shri Bhagwan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sarvan Kumar Raigar S/O Shri Kanaram Raigar Vs the State of Rajasthan