Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Dr. Renu Kala Mathur vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18282) on 9 April, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:18282]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6471/2025
Dr. Renu Kala Mathur W/o Dr. Ranjan Mathur, Aged About 59
Years, Residing At H.no. 26/2/3, Opposite Chanakya Hotel, Sadul
Ganj, Bikaner-334001, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Main
Building, Secretariat, Jaipur- 302005, Rajasthan Email-
[email protected]
2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health
Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302005 Email-
[email protected]
3. The Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health
Services (Group-Ii), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302005
Email- [email protected]
4. The Director (Public Health), Medical And Health Services,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Swasthya Bhawan,
Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302005 Email- Directorph-
[email protected]
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Abhilash Bora
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rakhi Choudhary, for
Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Judgment
09/04/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to
quash and set aside the impugned order dated
06.03.2025/12.03.2025 (Annexure-8) whereby the petitioner has
(Downloaded on 14/04/2025 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18282] (2 of 8) [CW-6471/2025]
been reflected to superannuate on 30.04.2025 on attaining the
age of 60 years.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Abhilasha Bora
submits that in light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court
in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors; D.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.5821/2023 (decided on 26.02.2024), the
petitioner deserves to be continued in service till she attains the
age of 62 years.
3. The facts are that the petitioner acquired qualification of
Bachelor of Dental Surgeon (BDS) and was appointed on the post
of Medical Officer (Dental) in the year 1995 after regular selection.
She is at present posted as Principal Specialist in PBM Hospital &
Associated Group of Hospitals (PBM), Bikaner.
4. As per the prevailing State Government Rules and
Regulations pertaining to Medical Officer (Dental)(Group-II), and
the Notification dated 31.03.2016, the petitioner was due to retire
on 30.04.2025. However, vide the judgment passed in
Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan (supra), it was held that the words,
“Medical Officers holding BDS/MBBS degrees” shall be read into
the notification dated 31.03.2016. As a consequence, it was held
that the age of superannuation of the Medical Officers in dental
stream shall also stand extended to 62 years.
5. The judgment as passed in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan (supra)
has attained finality and same has even been acted upon by the
State Government. It is therefore prayed that the age of
superannuation of the petitioner be extended for a period of two
years and the order impugned dated 06.03.2025/12.03.2025 be
set aside.
(Downloaded on 14/04/2025 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18282] (3 of 8) [CW-6471/2025]
6. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
refute the legal position as laid down in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan’s
case (supra), and the fact that the present petitioner shall also be
governed by the ratio laid down in the said case.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
8. In Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan‘s case (supra), while dealing with
Rule 56 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and while relying
upon the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in
Dr. Ranjan Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.6312/2022 (decided on 15.09.2022), the
Court observed and held as under:
“9. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered in the
case of Dr. Rajan Mathur (supra) by the Division Bench of
this Hon’ble Court, the relevant portion is reproduced
hereunder:
” Heard submissions advanced at Bar and
perused the material available on record.
The service conditions of Medical Teachers
possessing MBBS degree and BDS degree is
governed by the Rules of 1962. The Medical Teachers
irrespective of their stream are required to discharge
similar duties. The respondents have not placed on
record any material which would justify the
classification made by them in formation of two
separate classes among the employees governed by
the same service conditions and recruitment rules.
Since, statistics with regard to number of MBBS and
(Downloaded on 14/04/2025 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18282] (4 of 8) [CW-6471/2025]
Dental Medical Teachers available with the
department has not been placed on record, it can
safely be concluded that there is no intelligble
differentia for treating the Medical Teachers holding
the MBBS degrees and those holding BDS degree
differently. On the contrary, petitioner has placed on
record various documents/orders which reflect that in
various services viz. Railways, Defence (Civilian
Doctors under Directorate General of Armed Forces
Medical Service) etc., a conscious decision has been
taken to enhance the age of superannuation of dental
doctors from 62 years to 65 years so as to bring
them at par with MBBS doctors. The action of the
respondents amounts to hostile discrimination insofar
as the dental doctors have been denied the benefit of
enhanced age of superannuation. The notification
dated 30.03.2018, issued by the Government of
Rajasthan is in clear violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
A co-ordinate bench of this Court in a batch of
writ petitions led by the case of Dr. Mahesh
Chandra Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
(D.B. C.W. No. 13496/2021) examining a similar
controversy held that action of the state in fixing age
of superannuation of AYUSH doctors lower in
comparison to the allopathic doctors amounts to
hostile discrimination.
(Downloaded on 14/04/2025 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18282] (5 of 8) [CW-6471/2025]
In the result of aforesaid discussion, the
words-Medical Teachers holding BDS/MDS
degrees shall be read into the notification dated
30.03.2018. Consequently, it is ordered that the
petitioner shall be allowed to continue in
service upto the age of 65 years. The
respondent authorities shall pass necessary
orders to continue Medical Teachers (Dental) in
service till the age of 65 years with all
consequential benefits. It is however made
clear that the Medical Teachers (Dental) who
have already superannuated shall not be
entitled to claim reinstatement in service.
The writ petition is allowed in above terms. No
order as to costs.”
10. This Court also observes that the above said judgment
Dr. Rajan Mathur (supra) was challenged before the
Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(c) no. 19112/2022 (supra) and
the said petition was dismissed, the relevant portion whereof
is reproduced as hereunder:
“It is not in dispute that this petition involves extending
the higher age of retirement to BDS Doctors/teachers who are
also engaged in teaching in medical colleges. We see no
reason to interfere. The special leave petition is dismissed.”
11. Thus, it is clear that there exists no intelligible differentia
as claimed by the respondent State, and hence, in light of the
aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of
the present case, this Court is of the opinion that a similar
(Downloaded on 14/04/2025 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18282] (6 of 8) [CW-6471/2025]
controversy already being settled by a Coordinate Bench of
this Hon’ble Court the present petition deserves to be allowed.
11.1. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the words-
Medical Officers holding BDS/MBBS degrees shall be read into
the notification dated 31.03.2016.12.
12. Consequently, this Court allows the present petition.
Accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the order
No.2/2023 (Annex.5), qua the petitioner, it is ordered that
the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service upto the
age of 62 years. The respondent authorities shall pass
necessary orders to continue Medical Officers (Dental) in
service till the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits.
It is however made clear that the Medical Officers (Dental)
who have already superannuated shall not be entitled to claim
reinstatement in the service, in pursuance of this order. All
pending applications stand disposed of.”
9. In view of the above ratio and in view of the fact that
Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan‘s case (supra) has attained finality having
not been assailed further, the order impugned dated
06.03.2025/12.03.2025 definitely deserves to be quashed and set
aside qua the present petitioner. The same is hence quashed and
the present writ petition is allowed qua the present petitioner.
10. It is hereby held that the petitioner shall be permitted to
continue in service till she attains the age of 62 years. Necessary
orders be passed within a period of two weeks from now.
11. Before parting, this Court feels it essential to observe that
although Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan‘s case (supra) is a judgment in
rem, the respondent State Authorities have failed to pass
(Downloaded on 14/04/2025 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18282] (7 of 8) [CW-6471/2025]
appropriate directions for compliance of the said judgment
passedin rem.
12. Essentially the ratio laid down in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan’s
case (supra), would apply to all the Medical Officers (Dental) and
as per the said ratio, all the Medical Officers (Dental) shall be
entitled to continue in service up to the age of 62 years of course
with an exception to those who had already superannuated till
26.02.2024 i.e. the date of the judgment passed in Dr. Sarvesh
Pradhan (supra).
13. Evidently, the above is a judgment in rem and as held by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Naresh Singhal Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6372/2024
(decided on 02.05.2024) and other connected matters, in all cases
where the judgment is a judgment in rem and has attained
finality, the State authorities are bound to follow and apply the
same qua all the similarly situated persons and cannot
unnecessarily compel the aggrieved persons to knock the doors of
the Court again and again to get a similar order. Therein the Court
held as under:
“19. Justice is not a saleable commodity. The State
Authorities cannot be allowed to compel the aggrieved
persons to approach the Court of Law and get the same
order. Once a issue has been decided by the Court of
Law and the same has not been challenged by the State
Authorities before any Appellate Court and thus, it
attained finality, then the State Authorities are bound by
the same. The State should not unnecessarily compel the
aggrieved persons to knock the doors of the Court again
(Downloaded on 14/04/2025 at 09:29:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18282] (8 of 8) [CW-6471/2025]and again for getting a similar order. The “doctrine of
finality of judgment” is applicable in such matters. It is
settled proposition of law that when a judgment is
pronounced by the Court, affecting the rights of public at
large, then the said judgment should be treated as a
judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all the
similarly situated persons, whether they approached the
Court or not. With such a pronouncement, the obligation
is casted upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit
thereof to all the similarly situated persons.”
14. In view of the above, it is expected of the respondent State
Authorities to issue an appropriate circular/notification reflecting
the fact of the age of superannuation of the Medical Officers
holding BDS/MBBS degree to be 62 years with immediate effect.
15. It is further expected of the respondent State Authorities to
issue a common notice/circular on their official website to the said
purpose so that none of the aggrieved persons is required to
knock the doors of the Court again and again.
16. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
175-Praveen/Devanshi-
(Downloaded on 14/04/2025 at 09:29:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)