[2025:RJ-JP:49408-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1328/2025 Bhanwar Singh Son Of Shri Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Vpo-Hanspura, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj). ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj). 2. The Director Swachh Bharat Mission (Rural), Panchayati Raj Department, Directorate, Jaipur. 3. The District Collector Cum Chairman Of District Swachh Bharat Mission (Rural), Sikar. 4. The Chief Executive Officer Cum Member Secretary, District Swachh Bharat Mission, Zila Parishad Sikar. 5. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Patan, District Sikar. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Gouttam Mr. G.K. Gouttam with Ms. Saakshi Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Saxena with Ms. Divya Rathore, Mr. Anshul Ranga & Ms. Anjali Ranga for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 04/12/2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the stay application filed by the appellant was dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:49408-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1328/2025] 2. Grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has not considered the case of the petitioner, as the petitioner was appointed initially by the respondents on contractual basis and later on his services were governed by giving fresh appointment under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Post Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2022’). Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge while rejecting the stay application has not considered the judgments passed at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.672/2024 (Soma Lal Patel Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 19.01.2024; S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.14916/2025 (Sohan Lal Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 08.08.2025 as well as passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13178/2025 (Satyajeet Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 01.09.2025. 3. Learned counsel submits that all other persons are continuing beyond the age of 60 years, who approached this Court, however, the stay application of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by not considering these orders as well as the circular dated 28.03.2023 issued by the Department of Personnel, whereby the liberty was granted to engage the Government employee after their retirement on contract basis and allowed to work till attaining the age of 65 years. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12428/2025 (Shyamu Vs. State of [2025:RJ-JP:49408-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1328/2025] Rajasthan) dated on 29.08.2025 has considered the provisions of Rules and dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner is still pending before the learned Single Judge and therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. This appeal filed on behalf of the appellant deserves to be dismissed for the reasons:- (i) Admittedly, the appellant was given fresh appointment under the Rules of 2022 vide order dated 28.06.2023. According to Rule 11 of the Rules of 2022, the contractual appointment shall not be extended beyond the date on which contractual appointee attains the age of 60 years. (ii) The contractual Rules of 2022 have been framed by the State Government under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 8. In our considered view, the Rules of 2022 will prevail over any other order or circular issued by the State Government. 9. In that view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Single Judge is requested to decide the writ petition expeditiously. 10. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Monika/Dushyant/144