[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

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 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