Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Vijay Pal Tyagi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:7021) on 4 February, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:7021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3203/2025
Dr. Vijay Pal Tyagi S/o Shri Dharampal Tyagi, Aged About 60
Years, Resident Of 120-A, Mansarowar, Opposite Dps School, Pal
Bypass, Jodhpur, Presently Posted On Deputation As Associate
Professor (Ras-Shastra), At Dr. Sr Rajasthan Ayurved University,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Ayurved And Indian Medicine,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Secretary, Ayurved, Yoga And Naturopathy
Medicine, Unani, Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush)
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. The Director, Ayurved Department, Ashok Marg, Lohagal
Road, Savitri College Circle, Ajmer.
5. Dr. Sarvepali Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved
University, Through Its Registrar, Karwar, Nagaur Road,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
6. Deputy Director, Ayurved Department, Sirohi.
7. Deputy Director, Ayurved Department, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashpal Khileree
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rakhi Choudhary on behalf of
Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit - AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
04/02/2025
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the issuance of a
writ, direction, and/or order commanding the respondents to grant
[2025:RJ-JD:7021] (2 of 3) [CW-3203/2025]
salary as well as other consequential service benefits while
treating the petitioner as in service from the date of 'retirement'
by setting aside the order dated 30.09.2024 (Annex.-8), by which
the petitioner is being retired on 31.03.2025.
2. Without delving into the facts of the petition, which are not
relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the present matter, it
transpires that similarly situated counterparts of the petitioner
approached the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur by filing civil
writ petitions, led by D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13496/2021
(Dr.Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.), which were decided favorably. It was held that Ayurvedic
Medical Officers are entitled to parity with Allopathic Medical
Officers, and therefore, their age of superannuation was
determined to be 62 years. Accordingly, a mandamus was issued
to the respondents, directing them to allow Ayurvedic Medical
Officers to continue in service until the age of 62, in the following
terms:-
"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 continue in
service upto 62 years. This will require the 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
[2025:RJ-JD:7021] (3 of 3) [CW-3203/2025]
of 60 years, but have not completed 62 years of age, be reinstated in
service forthwith."
3. On a Court query regarding whether the counterparts of the
petitioner have been granted the benefits of the judgment ibid,
learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that the
same have indeed been granted.
4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is also allowed in terms
of the judgment in DBCWP No. 13496/2021 ibid. Impugned order
dated 30.09.2024 is quashed.
5. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
134-AK Chouhan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
