Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shriram Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 January, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20741/2024
Shriram Sharma S/o Surajmal Sharma, Aged About 59 Years, R/
o 54A, Block A, Chitrakoot Nagar, Bhuwana Extension, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary
(Admn.), Department Of Ayurved, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Ayurved, Yoga,
Naturopathy Medicine, Unani, Sidha And Homeopathy
(Ayush), Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Deputy Secretary (Administration), Department Of
Ayurved, Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. The Director, Directorate, Department Of Ayurved,
Government Of Rajasthan, Ashok Marg, Lohagal Road,
Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Firoda.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG.
Ms. Rakhi Choudhary.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
14/01/2025
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the issuance of a
writ, direction, and/or order commanding the respondents to grant
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.1), by which
the petitioner was retired.
(2 of 3) [CW-20741/2024]
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 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 respet 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
of 60 years, but have not completed 62 years of age, be
reinstated in service forthwith."
(3 of 3) [CW-20741/2024]
3. On a Court query regarding whether the counterparts of the
petitioners have been granted the benefits of the judgment ibid,
learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the same.
4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms
of the judgment in DBCWP No. 13496/2021 ibid.
(ARUN MONGA),J
47-Mohan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
