[2026:RJ-JP:16620-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 352/2026 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3530/2026 Parmanand Kushwah S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Mothpur, Baran, (Rajasthan). ----Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Sectretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. District Education Officer, District Baran, Rajasthan. 4. The Office Of The Panchayat Elementary Education Authority, Kundi, Panchayat Samiti Atru, District Baran. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinod Goyal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 20/04/2026 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 09.03.2026 whereby, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant, who in his writ petition claimed that he should be allowed to continue upto the age of 65 years on contract basis. 2. The case of the appellant is that he was appointed on contract basis in the year 2007 and thereafter, the State [2026:RJ-JP:16620-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-352/2026] Government has also issued circular, allowing persons to be re-employed after retirement upto the age of 65 years. He, therefore, submits that he should be allowed to continue upto the age of 65 years to work on contract basis. 3. The learned Single Judge having taken note of Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Post Rules, 2022 (for short ‘the Rules of 2022’) proceeded to hold that the maximum age to which a contractual employee can be allowed to work is 60 years alone. In view thereto, the relief claimed by the appellant was not granted. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the provisions of the Rules of 2022 would have no application to the appellant, who was appointed much earlier than the promulgation of the Rules of 2022 and since the provisions which were invoked at the time of appointment allowed the appellant to work upto the age of 65 years, he should be allowed to work upto the age of 65 years. He also relies on some interim orders passed by the Single Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, by which interim order, the concerned persons who were crossing the age of 60 years were allowed to continue to work. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions and noticed that firstly a person who is appointed on contract basis has no right on the post and it is exclusively within the domain of the State Government to appoint or to continue a contractual employee. The period of contract cannot be extended beyond the period, as laid down in the terms of employment. Article 310 of the Constitution also provides that if in any manner a contractual employee’s services are dispensed with even before the rights [2026:RJ-JP:16620-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-352/2026] under a contract are taken away and even before the period of contract is over, the only remedy available is to claim compensation. 6. Thus, it is apparent that no right is created in favour of any contractual employee and he or she cannot come to the Court claiming that he or she should be allowed to continue to work. 7. Secondly, so far as the Rules of 2022 are concerned, we notice that the same would be applicable to the persons who are actually performing their duties at the time of promulgation of the Rules of 2022 and since the appellant was working on contract basis, the rules would have their applicability and the learned Single Judge has not erred by applying the Rules of 2022. The Rules of 2022 obviously allow a contractual employee to perform duties upto the age of 60 years at the maximum, of course that is also discretionary and within the domain of the State. In view thereto, we do find any error in the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. The interim orders passed by the Single Bench would not in any manner bind the learned Single Judge to decide the other cases finally. 9. The appeal is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ RAHUL MIRKHANI/27