[2025:RJ-JP:44323] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9877/2025 1. Col. Ravindra Singh Rathore (Retd) S/o Late Shri Sayar Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Prime Rose 3/4 Park Apartment , Vatika Infotech City, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan), Presently Posted As District Soldier Welfare Office, Kota, Rajasthan. 2. Col. Pawan Pratap Singh (Retd) S/o Late Shri Purna Pratap Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Behind Head Post Office, Near Archna Color Lab Bikaner 334001. Presently Posted As District Soldier Welfare Officer, Sanjay Colony, 341001 ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Sainik Kalyan, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005, (Rajasthan). 2. Senior Deputy Secretary Department Of Sainik Kalyan, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. Director, Department Of Sainik Kalyan, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 4. Secretary, Kendriya Solider Board, Ministry Of Defence, Block Iv, Rama Krishna Puram, New Delhi-110066 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aslam Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG with Mr. Avinash Choudhay & Mr. Hardik Singh Mr. Mohit Balwada with Mr. Sunil Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment / Order [2025:RJ-JP:44323] (2 of 7) [CW-9877/2025] 04/11/2025 1. Instant Writ Petition has been filed by writ petitioners with following prayer:- (i) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby the impugned orders dated 21/05/2025 (Annexure-9) & 23/05/2025 (Annexure-10) passed by the respondents may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional therefore, the same may be quashed and set aside. (ii) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby the order directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue to serve on the post of Zila Sainik Kalyan Adhikari for a term of Five years from the date of their joining in terms of the new guidelines dated 16/10/2024 and the agreement executed by the petitioner and respondents. (iii) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby the order directing the respondents to extend the benefit of the new guidelines dated 16/10/2024, issued by the respondents in supersession of all previous letters and guidelines on the subject to the humble petitioners. Any other appropriate order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the humble petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed for a period of 5 years or 60 years, whichever is earlier, but during continuance of contract of petitioners, the respondents have changed the conditions of appointment for the post of Director and Additional Director in Jila Sainik Welfare Boards and enhanced the maximum age to 65 years. He further submits that by order dated 21.05.2025 and 23.05.2025, the respondents have intimated that the terms of appointment shall be governed by the provisions under which the appointment is made. He further referred the judgment in case of Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 2024 INSC 327 and submits that a rule cannot be given retrospective effect as the rule under which the petitioners were [2025:RJ-JP:44323] (3 of 7) [CW-9877/2025] appointed has already been repealed. He further submits that once rule has been repealed and a new provision has been enacted, then only new provision is applicable and the services the petitioners cannot be terminated applying repealed rule, on attaining age of 60 years. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned AAG on the ground that the petitioners were appointed in pursuant to the guideline dated 09.12.2014 and followed by a contract executed with respondents. He further submits that respondent(s) have changed the service conditions for fresh appointees and not only maximum age is enhanced but induction age is also enhanced, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any benefit for the scheme which is introduced by the respondent(s), during term of petitioners. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. The facts of the case in brief are that in pursuant to notification dated 09.12.2014, the petitioner No.1 was appointed as Jila Sainik Kalyan Adhikari vide notification dated 20.02.2024 at Kota and petitioner No.2 as Jila Sainik Kalyan Adhikari on 29.11.2022 at Chirawa (Jhunjhunu). 6. The appointment order dated 20.02.2024 in refrence to petitioner No.1 is reproduced as under:- vkns”k p;u lfefr }kjk p;fur j{kk lsok ds fuEu lsokfuo`Ùk vf/kdkjh dks ftyk lSfud dY;k.k vf/kdkjh ds in ij lkof/k lsok ds vk/kkj ij ,rn~}kjk fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA ;fn budk dk;Z larks’ktud jgk rks budh lsok vof/k 60 o’kZ dh vk;q rd j[kh tkosxh %& 1- duZy jfoUnz flag jkBkSM+ ¼ls-fu-½ [2025:RJ-JP:44323] (4 of 7) [CW-9877/2025] mDr vf/kdkjh dh lsok,a ftyk lSfud dY;k.k vf/kdkjh ds in ij jktLFkku esa dgha ij Hkh LFkkukUrfjr gks ldrh gS rFkk inLFkkiu vkns”k izkfIr ds ,d ekg esa vius in dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djuk gksxkA lsokvksa dh “krsZa fuEu izdkj gksaxh%& 1- lkof/k lsok mDr in ij 60 o’kZ dh vk;q rd gh gksxhA mlds ckn iqu% lsok esa ugha j[kk tkosxkA 2- lkof/k lsok dk le; izFker% nks o’kZ dk gksxk rFkk mlds mijkar dk;Z larks’ktud gksus ij nks&nks o’kZ dh o`f) dh tkosxhA 3- lsok vof/k ds nkSjku vf/kdkjh dh lsok;sa larks’ktud ugha gksus ij lkof/k lsok fdlh Hkh le; ,d ekg ds uksfVl ij lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA 4- p;fur gksus ds mijkar fu;qDr vf/kdkfj;ksa dk ekfld osru fu;ekuqlkj ns; gksxkA 5- p;fur vf/kdkjh edku fdjk;k HkRrk vkSj ;k=k HkRrk jkT; ljdkj ds fu;ekuqlkj ysus dk ik= gksxkA 6- lkekU;r;k budk inLFkkiu x`g ftys esa ugha fd;k tk;sxkA 7- vU; os lHkh “krsZa lafonk ¼lkof/k½ foys[k i= ij vafdr gS] inxzg.k ds iwoZ vf/kdkjh }kjk jkT; ljdkj ds fgr esa gLRkk{kj dj izLrqr fd;k tkosxkA jkT;iky dh vkKk ls] ¼Hkjr dqekj lkSaf[k;k½ “kklu ofj’B mi lfpo 7. The appointment order of petitioner No.2 dated 29.11.2022 is extracted below:- vkns”k p;u lfefr }kjk p;fur j{kk lsok ds fuEufyf[kr lsokfuo`Rr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks ftyk lSfud dY;k.k vf/kdkjh ds in ij lkof/k lsok ds vk/kkj ij ,rn~}kjk fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA ;fn budk dk;Z larks’ktud jgk rks budh lsok vof/k 60 o’kZ dh vk;qrd l[kh tkosxh %& 1- duZy iou izrki flag ¼ls-fu-½ 2- duZy c`tsUnz flag egyk ¼ls-fu-½ 3- duZy vt; “kekZ ¼ls-fu-½ 4- duZy vycVZ lej cj;koy] lsuk esMy ¼ls-fu-½ 5- dSIVu ¼vkbZ-,u½ j.kthr flag ¼ls-fu-½ 6- foax dekaMj veu pkS/kjh ¼ls-fu-½ 7- duZy deysUnz flag HkkVh ¼ls-fu-½ 8- duZy jktsUnz flag ¼ls-fu-½ mDr vf/kdkfj;ksa dh lsok,a ftyk lSfud dY;k.k vf/kdkjh ds in ij jktLFkku esa dgha ij Hkh LFkkukUrfjr gks ldrh gS rFkk inLFkkiu vkns”k izkfIr ds ,d ekg esa vius in dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djuk gksxkA lsokvksa dh “krsZa fuEu izdkj gksaxh %& [2025:RJ-JP:44323] (5 of 7) [CW-9877/2025] 1- lkof/k lsok mDr in ij 60 o’kZ dh vk;q rd gh gksxhA mlds ckn iqu% lsok esa ugha j[kk tkosxkA 2- lkof/k lsok dk le; izFker% nks o’kZ dk gksxk rFkk mlds mijkar dk;Z larks’ktud gksus ij nks&nks o’kZ dh o`f) dh tkosxhA 3- lsok vof/k ds nkSjku vf/kdkjh dh lsok;sa larks’ktud ugha gksus ij lkof/k lsok fdlh Hkh le; ,d ekg ds uksfVl ij lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA 4- p;fur gksus ds mijkar fu;qDr vf/kdkfj;ksa dk ekfld osru fu;ekuqlkj fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkosxkA 5- p;fur vf/kdkjh edku fdjk;k HkRrk vkSj ;k=k HkRrk jkT; ljdkj ds fu;ekuqlkj ysus dk ik= gksxkA 6- lkekU;r;k budk inLFkkiu x`g ftys esa ugha fd;k tk;sxkA 7- vU; os lHkh “krZ lafonk ¼lkof/k½ foys[k i= ij vafdr gS] inxzg.k ds iwoZ vf/kdkjh }kjk jkT; ljdkj ds fgr esa gLRkk{kj dj izLrqr fd;k tkosxkA jkT;iky dh vkKk ls] ¼Hkjr dqekj lkSaf[k;k½ “kklu ofj’B mi lfpo izfrfyfi fuEukafdr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko’;d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf’kr gS %& 1- egkys[kkdkj] jktLFkku] t;iqjA 2- fof’k’V lgk;d] ekuu;h jkT;ea=h egksn;] lSfud dY;k.k foHkkxA 8. The term of appointment clearly indicate that the petitioner(s) may continue on the post till attaining the age of 60 years. In pursuant to their appointment they have executed agreement with respondents. During their appointment, the guidelines were modified by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) on 13.08.2024 and the maximum age is enhanced to 65 years which means the term will be 5 years or 65 years, whichever is earlier. The dispute arose only because of modification in provision of maximum age to continue in the office and the petitioners have claimed that they are entitled to continue for a period of 5 years or 65 years, whichever is earlier. 9. In case of Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered effect of repeal in particular after considering the provision of Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act. After considering the legal issues observed that a subordinate [2025:RJ-JP:44323] (6 of 7) [CW-9877/2025] legislation by its very nature rests upon the executive’s understanding of the primary legislation. When a Court is of the opinion that such an understanding is not in consonance with the statute, it sets it aside for being ultra vires to the primary statute. The judgment pertains to a punitive provision and same cannot be applied retrospectively, therefore, considering the facts of the case, this judgment is not applicable in the instant case. 10. The petitioner No.1 was appointed in pursuant to order dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure-I) and the order clearly indicate that his term of service is only upto attaining the age of 60 years and initially he has appointed for a period of 2 years. In pursuant to order dated 20.02.2024, the petitioner No.1 has executed a contract, thus, the services of petitioner No.1 is governed by the contract entered between the parties. 11. The petitioner No.2 is appointed by order dated 29.11.2022 (Annexure-II). The term also provides that the initial appointment is for a period of 2 years and services shall be extended after 2 years for another period of 2 years but in any case the contractual appointment is till attaining the age of 60 years in pursuant to order dated 29.11.2022, a contract is executed by petitioner No.2 in favor of respondents. 12. The petitioners were appointed in pursuant to guideline dated 09.12.2014, the maximum permissible age at that time of selection was 57 years but the maximum age for engagement is 60 years. After amended new guideline on 13.08.2024, the age has increased to 59 years for Zila Sainik Welfare Officer and 60 years for Director and the maximum period is 5 years or 65 years [2025:RJ-JP:44323] (7 of 7) [CW-9877/2025] which ever is earlier. The change in guidelines clearly indicate that the change is made for entry level for also exit level. 13. The services of petitioners are governed by the contract executed by them and it is for a fixed duration. The controversy is governed by the contract and not by service rule. The State Government has made amendment in Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 so as to accommodate retired employees for re-engagements. 14. The service of petitioners are governed by the contract and service condition as mentioned in their contract including offer of appointment at the time of appointment. There is no provision under the modified scheme for protection of petitioners, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to be benefited from new guidelines. The petitioners have no prima facie case to pursue to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, hence, the writ petition liable to be dismissed. 15. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition preferred by petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is hereby dismissed. 16. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /181-S