JUDGMENT 1. This intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved against the order dated 4.8.2014 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby relying on the judgment in the case of Mooli Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2010(4) WLC (Raj.) 334 , the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. The appellant filed the writ petition, inter-alia seeking a direction to the respondents to allow him to serve continuously in the office of Special Public Prosecutor, N.D.P.S. Court, Bhilwara, pay the remuneration directly and not through placement agency and not to replace the appellant with other set of contractual employees. 3. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, in absence of learned counsel for the appellant, the writ petition was dismissed as noticed herein-before.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition was wrongly dismissed by the learned Single Judge by relying on the case of Mooli Devi (supra) as the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. 4. It was submitted that the dispute was subsequently decided by the learned Single Judge in Mukesh Kumar Khatik v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5049/2014 decided on 1.9.2014 , wherein after hearing the parties, the writ petition was allowed with the following directions:- "(i)- the petitioner may be permitted to work on the post in question till regular selected candidates made available for the post in question as per the decision taken by the Government; (ii)- no retired person shall be engaged on these regular sanctioned posts; (iii)- the stay is operated in this case, therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to work on the post in question till regularly selected candidates are made available upon the same terms and conditions upon which he was engaged." 5. It is further submitted that judgment in the case of Mukesh Kumar Khatik (supra) has been upheld by a Division Bench in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Mukesh Kumar Khatik & Anr. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1778/2014 decided on 26.10.2015 and therefore, the appellant is entitled to the same relief. 6. It is further submitted that judgment in the case of Mukesh Kumar Khatik (supra) has been upheld by a Division Bench in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Mukesh Kumar Khatik & Anr. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1778/2014 decided on 26.10.2015 and therefore, the appellant is entitled to the same relief. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the above facts regarding appellant being similarly situated to Mukesh Kumar Khatik (supra) and that the dispute raised is squarely covered by the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 1.9.2014 as upheld by the Division Bench on 26.10.2015. 7. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The order dated 4.8.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge is set-aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner is allowed with similar relief granted in the case of Mukesh Kumar Khatik (supra) as quoted herein-above.Appeal Allowed. *******