'Treated Himself Above Law': Rajasthan HC Slaps ₹50K Fine on Ayurveda Director for Ignoring Court on Pensions

In a sharp rebuke to bureaucratic overreach, the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur imposed a personal cost of ₹50,000 on Dr. Anand Kumar Sharma, Director of the Directorate of Ayurveda, for issuing an order to recover pension benefits from retired doctors—directly flouting prior court rulings and a Supreme Court stay. Justice Ravi Chirania, in consolidated writ petitions (S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6210/2026 and 6211/2026), disposed of the cases while terming the director's actions "serious and contemptuous."

From Court Victory to Recovery Shock

Retired Ayurvedic doctors Dr. Ram Gopal Sharma and Dr. Rama Shankar Pareek had secured a favorable ruling from a coordinate bench of the Rajasthan High Court on April 17, 2023, allowing their writ petitions against pension recovery. The state's special appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench, with no further challenge mounted. In a parallel identical matter, the department approached the Supreme Court via SLP No. 6428/2026 on February 16, 2026. The Apex Court issued notice, returnable May 11, 2026, and explicitly stayed any recovery: "In case any amount has already been paid to the respondent, the same shall not be recovered during pendency of the petition."

Undeterred, on March 24, 2026, Dr. Sharma directed district officers to halt "regular pensions" granted via web-based systems, compute excess payments, issue notices within two days, and deposit recoveries into the state exchequer. This prompted the fresh writ petitions, filed amid ongoing Supreme Court proceedings.

Petitioners Cry Foul, State Seeks Mercy

Petitioners' counsel, Mr. Bhuvnesh Tiwari, argued the impugned order brazenly ignored the finality of the 2023 High Court victory and the Supreme Court's restraint. With the matter sub-judice, such recovery drives were not just illegal but contemptuous.

Respondents, represented by Additional Advocate General Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma and Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, submitted an affidavit on April 18, 2026, offering no justification for the March 24 directive. The AAG conceded the officer's actions were "not fair and as per law," especially post the petitioners' High Court win and Supreme Court order. The controversial order was swiftly withdrawn on April 13, 2026, rendering the core grievance moot—but not the underlying contempt.

Court's Razor-Sharp Dissection of Defiance

Justice Chirania meticulously traced the litigation timeline, noting the department's own Supreme Court challenge underscored their awareness of judicial restraints. Yet, the director proceeded, treating prior orders as optional. No precedents were directly cited, but the ruling invoked core principles of judicial finality, sub-judice restraint under Article 226 writ jurisdiction, and the supremacy of Supreme Court directives under Article 141/142. The court distinguished administrative "withdrawal" from accountability, refusing to let the act slide despite the AAG's plea against contempt proceedings.

As media reports echoed—like "'Treated Himself Above Law': Rajasthan High Court Fines Ayurveda Dept Director ₹50,000" —the judgment highlighted how such defiance erodes public trust in governance.

Key Observations

"This Court finds that the action of the respondent-Officer is serious and contemptuous, who appeared before this Court and tried to justify his conduct which is highly unsatisfactory and unjustified."

"The fact of issuance of the order dated 24.03.2026 by the Officer namely, Dr. Anand Kumar Sharma... is not only illegal but contemptuous. Despite passing of the order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court... such an act of the Officer cannot be taken lightly as it shows that he has no respect for the order of the Court."

"Treated himself to be above law and issued the impugned order."

"Their action of issuing the order dated 24.03.2026 is also in contempt of the order dated 16.02.2026 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble Apex Court."

No Escape Without Cost: Writ Disposed, Fine Imposed

The court disposed of the petitions, noting the withdrawal mooted immediate relief. However, it fastened ₹50,000 costs on Dr. Sharma's salary, payable to the Bar Association for advocates' welfare within 20 days, with compliance listed for May 20, 2026. No formal contempt was initiated at the AAG's request, but the ruling sends a clear signal: officials cannot play judge and jury against binding orders.

This precedent reinforces accountability in public service disputes, potentially deterring hasty recoveries in pension matters amid litigation. For AYUSH retirees and beyond, it affirms that judicial stays are shields, not suggestions.