Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Mohd. Usman Kasmi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:44756) on 13 October, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:44756]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17941/2025
Dr. Mohd. Usman Kasmi S/o Shree Hajimir Mohd., aged about 65
Years, R/ O Ghomat, Jaisalmer, Pokran, Jaisalmer. ---Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Ayurveda
Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary Finance,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Director Ayurveda, Directorate of Ayurveda, Ajmer.
5. The Director, Pension Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16731/2025
Dr. Shamim Ahmed S/o Mohd. Mustafa, aged about 64 Years, R/
o Plot No. 88. Shanti Priya Nagar Road, P.O. Nandanvan,
Jodhpur. ----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary Ayurveda
Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary Finance,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary,
Department of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Director, Ayurveda, Directorate of Ayurveda, Ajmer.
5. The Director, Pension Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.A. Siddiqui
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Boda, DGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
13/10/2025
1. Heard.
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 04:59:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44756] (2 of 5) [CW-17941/2025]
2. The challenge in the present writ petition concerns the
superannuation of the petitioners, who were superannuated from
the post of Unani Doctors at the of 60 years instead of 62 years,
as held by this Court in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra
Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., whereunder the
age of superannuation which was applicable to Allopathic Doctors
was extended to Ayush Doctors also.
3. The petitioners claims to have retired on 30.06.202 and
31.01.2021 respectively and the said benefit were not been
extended to them, as such they filed the present writ petition
seeking continuity of service until they attains superannuation at
the age of 62 years instead of 60 years.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Division
Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition
2949/2024 Dr. Mahendra Singh Jakhar & Ors Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors alongwith a batch of petitions decided on
28.02.2024, held as follows: -
"1. In this batch of petitions, the issue arising for
consideration is as to whether providing the age of
superannuation for Ayurvedic Doctors vis-a-vis
Allopathic Doctors is discriminatory to Article 14 of
Constitution of India.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset
relied upon the recent judicial pronouncement of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of North Delhi
Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh
Sharma & Ors. reported as 2021 SCC online SC
540, and connected appeals to submit that in the
aforesaid decision, it has been held that in the matter
of fixing age of superannuation, no discriminatory
treatment can be meted out as between the Allopathic
Doctors and Ayurvedic Doctors. It is submitted that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as the doctors
under both segments are performing the same function
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 04:59:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44756] (3 of 5) [CW-17941/2025]
of treating and healing their patients, the classification
is discriminatory and unreasonable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that initially the orders passed by this Court
in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors.
vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., upon being
challenged, were kept in abeyance but later on the
State's SLP has been dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 30.01.2024.
The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reads asunder:
"Heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) - State
of Rajasthan. Also heard Mr. Adeel Ahmed,
Mr. Puneet Jain and Mr. Manish Verma,
learned counsel appearing for the
respondents. Mr. Ajay Choudhary, learned
counsel appears for the applicant in
application(s) for impleadment.
2. IA Nos. 66651 of 2023, 96650 of 2023 and
100293of 2023 (applications for impleadment)
are allowed.
3. The counsel for the State of Rajasthan
submits that since there is shortage of
Allopathic doctors serving under the Rajasthan
government, a decision was taken to raise the
retirement age of Allopathic doctors from 60
years to 62 years. However, since there were
large number of Ayush doctors serving with
the State Government, similar raising of
retirement age for Ayush doctors was not
considered necessary by the Government. Dr.
Singhvi would then argue that different
retirement age for the Allopathic doctors and
the Ayush doctors would not attract the
argument of discrimination under Article 14 of
the Constitution.
4. The impugned judgment rendered by the
High Court granting parity relief to the Ayush
doctors was based on the judgment of this
Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v.
Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. reported in
(2021) 17 SCC 642. In this case, the Court
noted that the doctors, both under the Ayush
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 04:59:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44756] (4 of 5) [CW-17941/2025]
and Allopathic stream, render service to
patients and on this core aspect, there is
nothing to distinguish one from the other.
5. The records would show that the above
decision of this Court as followed by the High
Courts in Uttar Pradesh Madhya Pradesh and
Uttarakhand. The like decision taken by the
High Court of rajasthan favouring the Ayush
doctors in raising their retirement age to
62years, is under challenge here.
6. It is relevant to note that this Court on
24.03.2022has dismissed the State's appeal in
SLP (Civil) No.33645 of 2018 arising out of the
judgment dated03.04.2018 rendered by the
of 2014.
7. The arguments advanced by the learned
counsel and the reasoning given by this Court
in Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma (supra) are
carefully considered. No infirmity is found with
the impugned judgment dated 13.07.2022
whereunder parity relief on retirement age
was granted to the Ayush doctors. The Special
Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
closed."
3. Learned Advocate General, however, would submit
that another order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. Dr. P.A. Bhatt
and Ors. 2023 SCC Online SC 503 was not brought
to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Dr. Mahesh
Chand Sharma & Ors. (supra) and therefore, the
State is contemplating to file a review petition against
the order dated 30.01.2024 passed in State of
Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Mahesh Chand Sharma & Ors.
(supra). He would further submit that this aspect was
taken into consideration in some of the connected
matters wherein, interim relief was not granted.
4. After taking into consideration the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that
insofar as the present petitions are concerned, the
petitioners herein are identically situated as Dr. Mahesh
Chand Sharma and others in whose favour earlier an
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 04:59:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44756] (5 of 5) [CW-17941/2025]
order was passed by this Court and against which SLP
has now been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
vide order dated 30.01.2024.
5. May be that the State is contemplating to file
review petition,however, that could not be a ground for
this Court not to pass similar orders in the present
cases also because the petitioners in this batch of
petitions are identically situated as Dr. Mahesh Chand
Sharma and others. Therefore, in that view of the
matter, we are inclined to allow all these petitions.
5. It has been brought to our notice and also placed
on record that the age of superannuation of Allopathic
Doctors was enhanced from 60 to 62 years with effect
from 31.03.2016.
6. While the petitioners in D.B. Civil Writ Petition
Nos.2949/2024, 3042/2024 & 2279/2024 are
continuing in service, petitioner in connected D.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 2732/2024 has attained the age of
superannuation. As the retirement of petitioner in D.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 2732/2024 has taken place
after31.03.2016, he shall be deemed to continue in
service upto the age of 62 years. The petitioners in
other writ petitions shall also continue in service upto
62 years.
7. The respondents are required to pass necessary
orders in compliance of the order passed by this Court.
Those who have been superannuated on attaining the
age of 60 years, but have not completed the age of 62
years, be reinstated in service forthwith.
8. All the petitions are accordingly allowed. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
9. A copy of this order be placed in each connected
file."
5. In light of the above judgment, the writ petitions are
allowed. They would, therefore, be entitled to all other benefits
including fixation and pension as if that they superannuated at the
age of 62 years.
6. All pending application(s) also stands disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
257-Dharmendra Rakhecha/-
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 04:59:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
