[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma S/O. Sh. … vs State Of Rajasthan … on 15 April, 2025
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JP:16050-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5023/2025
1. Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma S/o. Sh. Ghanshyam
Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Ashok Vihar Vistar,
Gopalpura Bypass, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Dr. Sunita Gupta W/o. Shri Ravi Shankar Goyal, Aged
About 60 Years, R/o. Shubham Hospital, Ram Mandir
Road, Opposite Govt. Hospital, Model Town First,
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through its Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Finance (Rule Division) Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Principal Secretary, Department of Medical & Health
Services, Government of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan
4. Director (PH), Medical & Health Services (Group II),
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Akshay Yadav Advocate on behalf
of Mr. Bharat Yadav Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Advocate General
assisted by Ms. Dhriti Laddha
Advocate, Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma
Advocate and Mr. Tanay Goyal
Advocate.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order
15/04/2025
1. Today when the case comes up for consideration, learned
Advocate General would submit that the State is contemplating to
(Downloaded on 16/04/2025 at 09:54:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16050-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-5023/2025]
approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave
Petition to assail the order passed in the case of Dr. Banshidhar
Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
1393/2024 and other cases.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the issue as to whether the doctors (Dentist) holding
degree of BDS are entitled to parity of treatment with the doctors
(MBBS) insofar as age of retirement is concerned, is no longer res
integra and stands concluded by order dated 26.02.2024 passed
in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.5821/2023).
3. We find that the said order decided the aforesaid issue. Dr.
Sarvesh Pradhan was also a BDS doctor. Present petitioners are
also BDS doctors, therefore, the issue appears to be squarely
covered by the order dated 26.02.2024.
4. Learned Advocate General, at this stage, would submit that
the Coordinate Bench has not examined the specific ground taken
by the State that differentiation in age of retirement is based on
intelligible differentia, as the age of doctors holding MBBS degree
was increased from 60 to 62 years to address the issue of lack of
Allopathic doctors. He would further submit that the Division
Bench has only recorded the submissions made in the rejoinder
regarding almost identical vacancy position of MBBS doctors as
well as BDS doctors. However, it is submitted that issue has not
been gone into.
5. Upon being asked as to whether any review petition is
preferred against order dated 26.02.2024 passed in the case of
(Downloaded on 16/04/2025 at 09:54:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16050-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-5023/2025]
Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan (supra), it is stated that so far no such
petition has been filed.
6. Learned Advocate General would also highlight that the order
passed by Coordinate Bench is based mainly on the verdict in the
case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. vs. State of
Rajasthan (D.B. C.W.P. No.13496/2021), wherein the State
had filed SLP which was dismissed but thereafter a review petition
has been filed in the Supreme Court which is pending
consideration.
7. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that order dated
26.02.2024 passed in the case of Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan (supra)
stands as on the day. Therefore, this petition also deserves to be
allowed on similar lines as the order passed in the case of Dr.
Sarvesh Pradhan (surpra).
8. Accordingly, the petitioners are declared entitled to continue
in service till attaining the age of 62 years. Any orders contrary to
the same are required to be withdrawn by the respondent
authorities with immediate effect.
9. With the above observations, the petition stands allowed.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
MANOJ NARWANI-DIVYA /238
(Downloaded on 16/04/2025 at 09:54:50 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link