JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition is confining his prayer to prayer No.1 (i) itself i.e. to quash the Office Order bearing Memo No.1529 dated 14.11.2025 issued by the Directorate of Urban Administration, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand (Annexure-5), whereby the tenure of the petitioner as Chairman of Grievance Redressal and Dispute Resolution Committee, constituted under the Jharkhand Street Vendors (Protection and Regulation of Livelihood) Rules, 2015, has been fixed giving retrospective effect as 1+1+1 years. He further prays to extend his tenure till the age of 65 years. 3. The facts of this case are as follows:- 3.1. The petitioner herein is a retired Judicial Officer who superannuated w.e.f. 31.08.2022. 3.2. An Advertisement being Advertisement No.6166, Ranchi dated 03.12.2021 was floated inviting applications for appointment of a Chairman and Member of the Grievance Redressal and Dispute Resolution Committee constituted under the Jharkhand Street Vendors (Protection and Regulation of Livelihood) Rules, 2015. 3.3. The petitioner being eligible applied for the said post of Chairman and was appointed vide Notification as contained in Memo No.151 dated 12.01.2023. He assumed the charge on 18.01.2023. 3.4. On 14.11.2025, the respondents came out with an Office Order as contained in Memo No.1529 dated 14.11.2025, whereby the tenure of the petitioner and others were amended. As per the new Resolution, the appointment of retired employees will be for one year, which can be extended for maximum of two times for one year each, which means that the tenure would be total of three years. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid new Resolution cannot be given retrospective effect and the same is against the Rules, thus the petitioner challenges the same in this writ petition. 5. To protect the rights of Urban Street Vendors and to regulate Street Vending activities and the matters connected thereto, the Government of India enacted “The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 ” (Act No.7 of 2014) (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2014). 5.1. Chapter-V of the Act of 2014 provides for “Dispute Redressal Mechanism”. The grievances of the Street Vendors are to be resolved in terms of the said Mechanism. 5.1. Chapter-V of the Act of 2014 provides for “Dispute Redressal Mechanism”. The grievances of the Street Vendors are to be resolved in terms of the said Mechanism. Section 20 (1) provides for constitution of one or more Committees by the appropriate Government to decide the applications received by the Street Vendors ventilating their grievance or dispute. As per the said Section, the Committee will consist of a Chairperson who has been a Civil Judge or a Judicial Magistrate and two other Professionals having such experience as may be prescribed for the purpose of deciding the applications. For better appreciation, it is necessary to quote Section 20 (1) of the Act of 2014, which is as follows:- “ 20. (1) The appropriate Government may constitute one or more committees consisting of a Chairperson who has been a Civil Judge or a Judicial Magistrate and two other professionals having such experience as may be prescribed for the purpose of deciding the applications received under sub-section (2): Provided that no employee of the appropriate Government or the local authority shall be appointed as members of the committee.” 5.2. Section 36 of the Act of 2014 gives power to appropriate Government to frame Rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. 5.3. By invoking Section 36 of the Act of 2014, the Government of Jharkhand on 05.04.2016 promulgated the Rules, which is known as “The Jharkhand Street Vendors (Protection and Regulation of Livelihood) Rules, 2015” (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 2015”). Rule 5 of the Rules of 2015 prescribes the “Educational Qualification and Experience for appointment as Member in Grievance Redressal and Dispute Resolution Committees”. Rule 5 (i) mandates that the appointment of the Members of the Committee will be for a period of five years or till they attain the age of 65 years and the minimum age limit will be 35 years. 5.4. In the entire Rules, there is no provision that the tenure would be for a period of three years. There is nothing in the Rules also that the appointment would be on contractual basis. 6. An Advertisement being Advertisement No.6166, Ranchi dated 03.12.2021 was published seeking applications from eligible persons to fill up the post of Members of the Committee including the Chairperson. There is nothing in the Rules also that the appointment would be on contractual basis. 6. An Advertisement being Advertisement No.6166, Ranchi dated 03.12.2021 was published seeking applications from eligible persons to fill up the post of Members of the Committee including the Chairperson. In the entire Advertisement, there is no whisper that the tenure would be for three years, rather it is specifically mentioned at clause-4 that the tenure of the appointment will be for five years or till the person attains the age of 65 years and the minimum age limit will be 35 years. Further, in the Advertisement, there is no whisper that the appointment would be on contractual basis. 7. The petitioner being eligible was appointed as the Chairman of the Committee vide Appointment Letter dated 12.01.2023. Surprisingly, in the appointment letter, his appointment was shown to be on contractual basis, which could not have been and is against the provisions of established Rules governing the issue and the Advertisement. 8. On 14.11.2025, the Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, came up with an Office Order as contained in Memo No.1529 dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), whereby the tenure of the petitioner has been curtailed. By aforesaid Office Order, the petitioner was informed that his tenure will come to end on 17.01.2026 as he would complete three years on that date. As per the respondents, the tenure is extendable after initial appointment of the petitioner, twice only for a period of one year each. The aforesaid Office Order modifies the initial appointment letter of the petitioner. 9. The aforesaid letter is based on a Resolution as contained in Memo No.1243 dated 28.04.2016, which regulates the tenure of a retired employee who has been later on engaged on contractual basis. 10. The aforesaid Resolution is before me. The said Resolution is applicable for those persons who have been appointed on contractual basis after they have superannuated from their service. The said Resolution restricts post retiral contractual employment for a period of three years only, which is apparent from Clause-11. Clause-8 of the said Resolution is also important, which provides that this Resolution will not be applied for the Chairperson of any independent Constitutional Authority or Tribunals or any Body constituted under any Act. 11. The said Resolution restricts post retiral contractual employment for a period of three years only, which is apparent from Clause-11. Clause-8 of the said Resolution is also important, which provides that this Resolution will not be applied for the Chairperson of any independent Constitutional Authority or Tribunals or any Body constituted under any Act. 11. In the instant case, the appointment of the petitioner was by virtue of the Act of 2014 read with the Rules of 2015. Since the appointment of the petitioner is governed by the Parliamentary Statute and the Rules framed thereunder, by virtue of clause-8 of the Resolution dated 28.04.2016, the same cannot be applied so far as this petitioner is concerned. The tenure of the petitioner should be in terms of Rule 5 (i) of the Rules of 2015 which clearly provides that the tenure of the Members would be for a period of five years or till they attain the age of 65 years and the minimum age limit will be 35 years. Be it noted that the petitioner is a Chairman and the Chairman is also a Member of the Committee. 12. Further, in the entire Act or Rules, there is no provision for appointing any Member or Chairman on contractual basis. The Advertisement also does not provide for appointment on contractual basis. Thus, the usage of the word “Contractual” in the appointment letter of the petitioner, has got no value in the eyes of law. 13. Considering what has been held above, since the Resolution upon which the respondents have relied upon to curtail the tenure of the petitioner, is not applicable so far as this petitioner is concerned, nor the same can be applied as the same is de-hors the provisions laid down in Rule 5 (i) of the Rules of 2015. Thus, the impugned Office Order as contained in Memo No.1529 dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), is hereby quashed. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed . No order as to costs. 15. Pending interlocutory application being I.A. No.76 of 2026 and other pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.