[2025:RJ-JD:48430]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20597/2025 Dr. Brij Mohan Vairagi S/o Laxmi Narayan Vairagi, Aged About 62 Years, (Dob- 08/08/1963), R/o S-2/373 Housing Board Colony, Hiran Mangari, Sector 14, Goverdhan Vilas (Rural), Udaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Trough The Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

3. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Ayurved, Yoga And Naturopathy Medicine, Unani, Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

4. The Director, Department Of Ayurved, Ashok Marg, Lohagal Road, Savitri College Circle, Ajmer (Rajasthan)

5. The Deputy Director, Department Of Ayurved, Government Of Rajasthan, Pratapgarh (Rajasthan)

6. The Director, Pension Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, AAG Mr. Deepak Bora, DGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

11/11/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner seeks relief similar to the relief granted in D.B. Civil Writ Petitioner No.13496/2021 titled as ‘Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.’ giving the benefit of relaxing the age of superannuation vis-a-vis MBBS doctors.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that subsequently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the similar issue in Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563/2024 titled as ‘State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Anisur Rahman’ and batch of petitions by giving modified directions. He further submits that in the present case, petitioner is already superannuated even if, the age of superannuation is extended to the petitioner; his claim is only to avail the pay benefits, allowances and revision of pension, in the event he succeeds, basing on the decision of Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

3. In the background of the above contentions and the decision referred of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. (supra) case, wherein the operative portion of said case reads as follows:

“It is not necessary for us to dwelve deep in the matter because this issue is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors (supra) and batch of cases where this issue was examined. While enhancing the age of retirement of Allopathic Doctors from 60 to 62 years, this enhancement had not taken place in respect of the class of Ayurvedic Doctors which resulted in filing of petitions before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held the classification unreasonable and the petitions were allowed. The matter was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the employer namely North Delhi Municipal Corporation. Their Lordships in the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as below:-

“22. The common contention of the appellants before us is that classification of AYUSH doctors and doctors under CHS in different categories is reasonable and permissible in law. This however does not appeal to us and we are inclined to agree with the findings of the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court that the classification is discriminatory and unreasonable since doctors under both segments are performing the same function of treating and healing their patients. The only difference is that AYUSH doctors are using indigenous systems of medicine like Ayurveda, Unani, etc. and CHS doctors are using Allopathy for tending to their patients. In our understanding, the mode of treatment by itself under the prevalent scheme of things, does not qualify as an intelligible differentia. Therefore, such unreasonable classification and discrimination based on it would surely being co