JUDGMENT : ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J. “One Puttu Lal, a class-IV employee of the Social Welfare Department of Government of Uttar Pradesh, died in service in the year 1979. His 78 year old widow, Ramjilai @ Shanti Devi, complained to the Commission, in 2010, that even after a lapse of 31 years, she had not been paid the retiral benefits of her late husband and family pension. Hence her family was on the verge of starvation, she was not able to solemnize the marriage of her marriageable daughters and so forth. When this fact as brought to the notice of the State Authorities, they put a false and lame excuse forth, that the family had not applied for these benefits.” Prologue from Book Titled as Retiral Benefits as a Human Rights published by NHRC, India @ 2014:- 1. These Writ Petitions raises common question of law, therefore, we are deciding these writ petitions by a common order. The common question before us is whether the petitioners or the Ayush Doctor who were superannuated considering the age of 60 years but later considering the judgment of this Court the age of superannuation has been enhanced to 62 years and the Ayurvedic doctor who were given reappointment but as a condition whether they are required to deposit the retiral benefits or the benefits which they have received at the age of superannuation of 60 years? 2. In the lead matter Dr. Rajendra Prasad Parashar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8496/2025 the prayer is made for following relief:- (i) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 and impugned circular dated 19.05.2025 be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. (ii) By issuing another appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to deposit the Retirement Benefits of Pension, Gratuity and Commutation of the petitioner as per the order dated 26.03.2025 and allow him to join his duties with all consequential benefits. 3. The facts are that in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13496/2021 ( Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. ) , a Division Bench of this Court while placing reliance upon judgment in case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Ram Naresh Sharma and Ors. 3. The facts are that in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13496/2021 ( Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. ) , a Division Bench of this Court while placing reliance upon judgment in case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Ram Naresh Sharma and Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 540 laid down that the age of superannuation for Ayurvedic doctors shall be 62 years in conformity with superannuation age prescribed for Allopathic Doctors. The Division Bench has observed as under:- “The aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court leaves no scope for arguments on the part of the respondents to defend their action of discrimination in the matter of fixing age of superannuation of Ayurvedic Doctors and it has to be consequently held that they are also entitled to continue in service till completion of age of 62 years, which is applicable in the case of Allopathic Doctors. It is brought to our notice and also placed on record that the age of superannuation of Allopathic Doctors was enhanced from 60 to 62 years w.e.f. 31.03.2016 While some of the petitioners are still working, some of the petitioners have retired after attaining the age of 60 years after the issuance of notification enhancing age of retirement from 60to 62 years in respect of Allopathic Doctors. All those petitioners, who have so retired after 31.03.2016, shall be deemed to have continued in service upto 62 years. This will require the respondents authority to pass necessary orders treating them inservice till attaining the age of 62 years in individual cases with consequential benefits of continuity of service. All other consequential action would also be required to be taken which include refixation of pension and other benefits. Those, who have been superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years, but have not completed 62 years of age, be reinstated in service forthwith.” 4. Aforesaid judgment dated 13.07.2022 was assailed by the respondent(s) by filing SLP (Civil) 14308-14318/2022 before Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Special Leave to Appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan and concerned departments were dismissed on 30.01.2024, thus, the age of retirement of Ayush Doctors is enhanced to 62 years. 5. Aforesaid judgment dated 13.07.2022 was assailed by the respondent(s) by filing SLP (Civil) 14308-14318/2022 before Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Special Leave to Appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan and concerned departments were dismissed on 30.01.2024, thus, the age of retirement of Ayush Doctors is enhanced to 62 years. 5. In pursuant to aforementioned judgment the respondent(s) have issued an order of reinstatement to those doctors who have not crossed the age of 62 years but with direction to them to deposit all retiral benefits which they have received in pursuant to attaining superannuation age. The petitioners are before us raising several grounds, the respondent(s) have also filed their replies and considering the urgency, we are disposing of these writ petitions at this stage. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that some of the petitioners have attained the age of 62 years, wherein order of reinstatement has not been passed, but the Department has refused to grant them benefit of pension, considering the superannuation age as 62 years instead of 60 years. They further submitted that petitioners are ready to deposit amount of pension, gratuity, and commutation, which has been considered as retiral benefits, but GPF and State Insurance are not retiral benefits, and the petitioners should not be forced to deposit the said amount in the funds of the State Exchequer. They also submitted that some of the petitioners are likely to be retired within 1 year, as they have already crossed the age of 61 years, and some of them are between 60 to 61 years. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring Pension Rules 1996, submitted that the amount of State Insurance is not a retiral benefits, and same cannot be considered as retiral dues, therefore, the respondents cannot direct the petitioners for deposit of the said amount. They further submitted that the scheme of State Insurance clearly indicate that, one year before the age of superannuation, the collection of premium is stopped, and on date of retirement, the maturity amount along with bonus is paid to the employees. They also referred amount of GPF and submitted that GPF is also savings of employee. They further submitted that the scheme of State Insurance clearly indicate that, one year before the age of superannuation, the collection of premium is stopped, and on date of retirement, the maturity amount along with bonus is paid to the employees. They also referred amount of GPF and submitted that GPF is also savings of employee. They also submitted that if the petitioners deposits the amount of State Insurance, then that will become due to be paid to the employees and be payable on very next day, therefore, it is a futile exercise for depositing and re- releasing the amount to the petitioners. He further submitted that they are ready and willing to deposit the amount as determined and directed by this Hon’ble Court. He further placed reliance upon order dated 19.12.2024 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19299/2024, Dr. Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench while considering a similar situation has directed release of benefits to identically placed Ayush Doctor without deposition of pensionary benefits and same is applicable upon the case of present petitioners. 8. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned AAG while referring order dated 03.04.2025 in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.263/2025 Dr. Raghuveer Prasad Vaishnav Vs. Shri Bhawani Singh Detha and order dated 16.04.2025 in case of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 342/2025 titled as B.L. Mishra @ (Babu Lal Meena) Vs. Akhil Arora . He also placed reliance upon order dated 10.03.2025 in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 189/2025 Dr. Rekha Bhardwaj Vs. Akhil Arora and submitted that subject to the redeposit of the monetary benefits by the petitioners their reinstatement was ordered by the Department thus, the petitioners are obliged to deposit the said amount to the State Government. He also submitted that if the age of petitioner is enhanced from 60 to 62 years then it is duty of the petitioners to return the monetary benefits which they have received considering the superannuation age as 60 years. 9. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned AAG for the respondent(s). Perused the material placed on record and also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for the parties. 10. In case of Panchayat and Rural Development Department and Ors. Vs. S.K. Shrivastava , (2025) INSC 1142 while referring the judgment in case of Pepsu RTC Vs. 9. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned AAG for the respondent(s). Perused the material placed on record and also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for the parties. 10. In case of Panchayat and Rural Development Department and Ors. Vs. S.K. Shrivastava , (2025) INSC 1142 while referring the judgment in case of Pepsu RTC Vs. Mangal Singh , (2011) 11 SCC 702 and U.P. Roadways Retired Officals Association Vs. State of U.P. (2024) 9 SCC 331 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the payment of retiral dues/gratuity/pension is not a matter of bounty but in fact a matter of right of every employee, should there be some rule or statute from where the right may originate. 11. In case of Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) , a Co-ordinate Bench while considering identically placed Ayush Doctor has directed by an interim order that the petitioner be allowed to join in services without insisting for pre-deposition of the retiral benefits. Further, the salary (pay-minus-pension) be released after adjustment against monetary benefits treating him in continuity of services in pursuant to interim order 19.12.2024. A rider is placed upon the petitioner not to claim retiral benefits again on attaining the age of superannuation of 62 years. 12. In case of Dr. B.L. Mishra @ Babu Lal Mishra (supra), after considering the contention that payment of State Insurance and GPF were made upon maturity and has no connection with the retirement and further on 09.05.2025, the contempt petition is disposed of without deciding the issue as raised thereunder. 13. In case of Dr. Raghuveer Prasad Vaishnav (supra), the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the total amount which petitioner has received upon retirement towards gratuity, commutation of pension, leave encashment, general provident fund, State Insurance and Pension till date is quantified as Rs. 73,31,557/-. The petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the same on deposition the benefit was granted to Dr. Raghuveer Prasad Vaishnav (supra). 14. Similarly in case of Dr. Purn Brahmn Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) again the Division Bench has considered the issue and while referring order dated 11.11.2024 and made it clear that whatsoever amount has been received towards retiral benefits should be deposited in the funds of the State and on deposition they are entitled for reinstatement as per order dated 11.11.2024. In case of Dr. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) again the Division Bench has considered the issue and while referring order dated 11.11.2024 and made it clear that whatsoever amount has been received towards retiral benefits should be deposited in the funds of the State and on deposition they are entitled for reinstatement as per order dated 11.11.2024. In case of Dr. Rekha Bhardwaj (supra) again Division Bench after considering the offer to deposit made by the counsel for petitioner directed reinstatement order in case of deposition of retiral dues. 15. On 13.08.2025, after considering judgment in case of Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma and Others. Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9910/2025 Dr. Sukhram and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. have observed as under:- “5. Having considered the submissions made above, we hold that the petitioners ought to have been allowed to continue upto the age of 62 years and their retirement age ought to have been 62 years as has held by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13496/2021 (Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected writ petitions (supra). 6. However, we are inclined to accept the contentions raised by the Learned Additional Advocate General that actual benefits are not required to be paid to the petitioners who have approached the court after much delay. They would, therefore, be entitled to only notional benefits for the period from 60 to 62 years. Their pension, however, shall be notionally fixed, as if they retired at the age of 62 years by granting them notional benefits of increments, their last pay would accordingly be calculated and the pension would accordingly be revised. They would of course, be entitled to the arrears of revised pension from 62 years onward. The arrears shall be calculated as directed above and released to the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.” 16. As per information on website of Pension Department (https/pension.raj.gov.in), the retiral benefits are considered as under:- (i) Pension, (ii) Dearness Relief, (iii) Family Pension, (iv) Death-cum-retirement gratuity, (v) Commutation of Pension, 17. As per Income-Tax Department, the retiral benefits are considered as under for the purpose of taxability:- (i) Gratuity, (ii) Pension, (iii) Leave Encashment Salary, (iv) Provident Fund, 18. As per information on website of Pension Department (https/pension.raj.gov.in), the retiral benefits are considered as under:- (i) Pension, (ii) Dearness Relief, (iii) Family Pension, (iv) Death-cum-retirement gratuity, (v) Commutation of Pension, 17. As per Income-Tax Department, the retiral benefits are considered as under for the purpose of taxability:- (i) Gratuity, (ii) Pension, (iii) Leave Encashment Salary, (iv) Provident Fund, 18. As per Pension Portal of Government of India, retiral benefits are listed as under: (i) Pension, (ii) Commutation of Pension, (iii) Death-cum-retirement gratuity, (iv) General Provident Fund and Incentives, (v) Contributory Provident Fund, (vi) Leave Encashment, (vii) Central Govt. Employees Group Insurance Scheme (CGEGIS), (viii) TA for settlement at a station after retirement, 19. Having considered aforesaid pension, dearness relief, family pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity, commutation of pension, and leave encashment salary are in fact retiral benefits. If we extend the provision, then General Provident Fund (GPF) and its incentives and Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) are also part of retiral benefits, but state insurance (S.I.) is a different scheme. Therefore, considering aforesaid provision, we can certainly say that if any employee who received retiral benefits considering the age of superannuation as 60 years and further he is reinstated in the services for superannuation in future at the age of 62 years, then he is required to redeposit only the retiral benefits. 20. The State Insurance Scheme is operated by the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department of the Government of Rajasthan and FAQ as hoisted on https://sipf.rajasthan.gov.in clearly suggests that there were two types of insurance, firstly endowment and secondly is lifetime policy, but nowadays lifetime policy is discontinued and only endowment policy is prevalent. The scheme of state insurance is introduced and made compulsory from 01.01.1954 upon all government employees with aim to provide social economic security. 21. It is well-settled proposition of law that unless disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending, the state cannot withhold pensionary or retiral benefits. The judgment in case of State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava , (2013) 12 SCC 210 can be considered for the purpose that gratuity, pension, and leave encashment are not bounties but rights earned by an employee for long and faithful service. Retiral benefits are the accumulative savings of a lifetime of a service and denial, non-payment or delayed payment tantamounts to denial of an individual's rightful property, but is also a violation of human rights of the individual. Retiral benefits are the accumulative savings of a lifetime of a service and denial, non-payment or delayed payment tantamounts to denial of an individual's rightful property, but is also a violation of human rights of the individual. Considering the judgments and the provisions referred herein above, and also the cases of present petitioners, the matter can be divided into following four categories. (I) Individuals, who have crossed age of 62 years and order of reinstatement is not passed in their favor, as they have already crossed enhanced age of 62 years, when the Court order is implemented by the Government, (ii) Individuals, who have crossed 62 years after reinstatement and retired at the age of 62 years but during pendency of present petition(s), (iii) Individuals, who are likely to be retired within one year and crossed 61 years of age, (iv) Individuals, who have crossed age of 60 years but not completed age of 61 years. 22. As per IRDAI, an endowment policy is a type of life investment plan that combines savings with protection, it provides a guaranteed lump-sum upon maturity or death benefit to nominee of life insurer. The insurance is a contractual agreement but making it compulsory for the Government servant which serves a dual purpose firstly savings for the employee and secondly social security in case of untimely death of an individual which includes suicide as well. 23. Aforementioned Scheme clearly indicate that the State Insurance Policy is introduced only for providing social security. As per scheme during last year of superannuation, no premium is paybale but the amount so invested by way of monthly subscription along with bonus as declared by the Department is payable on 1 st day of superannuation. It clearly indicate that the State Insurance is an endowment policy, and an endownment policy is a life insurance that provides a lump-sum amount after a specific term or on death. Originally these policies are long term plan policies and it gives a guaranteed lump-sum payment upon maturity or a death benefit to a nominee of concerned employee. The aim and object is providing social security and also securing financial future of the family of the employee. 24. Originally these policies are long term plan policies and it gives a guaranteed lump-sum payment upon maturity or a death benefit to a nominee of concerned employee. The aim and object is providing social security and also securing financial future of the family of the employee. 24. As regards to GPF (General Provident Fund) is concerned, the Scheme has been introduced with aim to develop savings habits among the employees of the State Government and use after the retirement of employees, when he/she does not have regular income. After introduction of New Pension Scheme in 2004, the scheme which was applicable to the employees who were appointed prior to 01.01.2004 has ceased to be applicable on the employees who are appointed on or after 01.01.2004. Herein, this case all appointments were made prior to 01.01.2004, thus, the scheme is applicable. 25. Any of the petitioner or Ayush doctor who is superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years and he received, the retiral benefits considering the age of superannuation as 60 years and after order in case of Mahesh Chand Sharma (supra) if reinstatement is not possible as he has already attained the age of 62 years then in such a situation the answer is given by Hon’ble Divison Bench in case of Dr. Sukhram and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) We are not considering the matters related to those Ayush Doctor(s) who have already attained the age of 62 years and were not actually reinstated in the service. 26. The respondents are duty bound to consider and apply the judgment of in case of Dr. Sukhram and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) and if anyone is aggrieved he may avail the remedy under the law. 27. Now, comes the second category of individual who have crossed the age of 62 years but they were reinstated in services as they have not attained the age of 62 years. In such a situation they cannot be forced to re-deposit the retiral benefits, rather considering a medium formula by applying judgment in case of Dr. Sukhram and others vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) and also the rules, the pension can be fixed on the basis of last pay drawn at the time of age of superannuation. Mere exercise to insist upon deposit and re- release of retiral benefits will serve no purpose. Sukhram and others vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) and also the rules, the pension can be fixed on the basis of last pay drawn at the time of age of superannuation. Mere exercise to insist upon deposit and re- release of retiral benefits will serve no purpose. In a case if anything is due to be recovered from any such individual then same can be recovered from the payment due towards him. Therefore, again they are not statutorily required to deposit the retiral dues which they have received at the age of 60 years when they were originally superannuated, but certainly they cannot reclaim same benefits again though they are entitled for payment of retiral benefits considering age as 62 years. 28. Now, comes the third category, individuals who are likely to be retired within one year and already crossed age of 61 years. In such a case, they are required to deposit all retiral benefits except money received under State Insurance policy. If they want to avail benefit of social security as per scheme of State Insurance, they may have an option to deposit entire amount of State Insurance, otherwise they or their family members are not entitled for any benefit under the policy of State Insurance as same is not applicable upon them after maturity. They are required to deposit due amount, if any, to the State Government. 29. Now, comes the fourth category of individuals who have crossed the age of 60 years and received post-retiral benefits and have not completed age of 61 years. Considering the fact that the state insurance policy is compulsory for them as they are required to pay premium till attaining the age of 61 years, therefore they are under an obligation to deposit entire retiral benefits and also the amount received under the state insurance policy. If they fail to deposit State Insurance amount then in such a situation they are not entitled for any social security under the state insurance scheme of the state. 30. Having considered the material as discussed hereinabove including rules and the legal position the writ petitions are liable to be allowed partially in following manner:- (i) All those individuals who have crossed the age of 62 years but actually not reinstated, hence, they are entitled for benefits in accordance with judgment dated 13.08.2025 in case of Dr. Sukhram and Ors. Vs. Sukhram and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra). (ii) Those indivduals who were reinstated as they have not attained the age of 62 years on date of reinstatement but eventually superannuated, since they have attained the age of 62 years and are entitled for pensionary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn. They are not required to re-deposit the pensionary benefits but whatever difference is payable to them considering the superannuation age of 62 years. Their new benefits be calculated and same is required to be set off against the payment aleady madeand if any recovery is required to be made then the concerned individual is liable to deposit the same. (iii) Those individuals who are likely to be superannuated within one year but have crossed the age of 61 years are required to redeposit the retiral benefits which they have received at the age of 60 years but they are not required to redeposit the full and final amount under the State Insurance Policy. The deposit of State Insurance Policy is optional for them. In case they opt not to deposit the amount of S.I. Policy then they are not entitled for social security as provided under the scheme of State Insurance and their legal heirs are also not entitled to claim anything if any unforeseen happens to concern employee till attaining the age of 62 years (extended age of superannuation). (iv) Individuals, who have crossed the age of 60 years and received retiral benefits but have not completed 61 years are required to redeposit the entire amount including amount of State Insurance as same is compulsorily applicable on them and they are required to subscribe the membership of the State Insurance till attaining the age of 61 years. 31. With aforesaid, these writ petitions stands disposed of with pending application(s), if any. 32. No order as to costs.