[2026:RJ-JP:3329] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6282/2018 Col. (Retd) Promoad R Malik S/o Shri R.S. Malik, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 144, Paschim Vihar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan Ex- Servicemen Corporation, (A Govt Of Rajasthan Undertaking) Through Its Chairman, P-8, Sanjhi Chhat, Sector-2 Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. 2. The Managing Director, Rajasthan Ex-Servicemen Corporation, (A Govt. Of Rajasthan Undertaking) Through Its Chairman, P-8, Sanjhi Chhat, Sector-2 Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Singhvi Ms. Suhani Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raghav Mishra and Mr. Umesh Choudhary for Mr. V.D. Gathala, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 23/01/2026 1. Instant writ petition is filed with following prayer:- i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the action of the Respondents of terminating the service of the petitioner by not extending the period beyond contract to the 2018 in March contravention terms of Appointment letter and Regulations of 2012 may be declared as bad, illegal and unconstitutional. Further the action of Respondent of depriving the petitioner its legitimate right to continue in services as per the rules and regulations and thus fulfill his [2026:RJ-JP:3329] (2 of 3) [CW-6282/2018] family obligations, may kindly be deprecated in strongest terms. ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the action of the Respondents of terminating the service of the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set-aside. Further, the Respondents may be directed to extend/renew the service contract period of the petitioner as per the provisions of the Regulations of 2012. iii) By an appropriate writ order or direction of action of Respondents of replacing one set of contractual employee by another set of contractual employee as illegal and bad in law. iv) By an appropriate writ order of direction any consequential order passed by the Respondents against the petitioner may also be quashed and set-aside. 2. The contention of the counsel for respondents is that petitioner has already attained age of 65 years and as per the terms of the appointment, the petitioner can not be continued beyond the period of 65 years of age. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to receive due financial benefits for period of 3 months. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that writ petition can be disposed at this stage with direction to the respondents to make payment of due amount of three months. 4. Having considered the submission and also considering Clause 4 of the Service Regulation, 2012 (Annexure-3), nothing survives in this writ petition except for the financial benefits for which the petitioner is entitled, therefore, the writ petition is [2026:RJ-JP:3329] (3 of 3) [CW-6282/2018] disposed with direction to make payment of three months salary and other benefits, if any within a period of 60 days from date of receipt of copy of the order. 5. With aforesaid, the writ petition and pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /03