Order : 1. In this bunch of petitions under challenge are respective transfer orders of the contractual employees (petitioners). Assertion is that not only their transfer is sheer mechanical exercise of mind, but also in blatant non-compliance of applicable Rules. Facts of individual cases are thus not being gone into, as what is assailed herein simplicitor is the procedure, legality and the administrative propriety of the transfers/postings of the petitioners. Vide this common order, above tilted petition along with the ones recited in Appendix (A) are being disposed of as similar issues are involved therein. 2. Concededly, all the petitioners are contractual employees working in different Departments i.e. Medical & Health/ Panchayati Raj and Rural Development of the State of Rajasthan. They have been appointed under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules , 2022 (for short, 'the Rules of 2022'). 3. Common grievance being, that by virtue of transfers carried out by the respondents, the petitioners, being contractual on jobs, are very low-paid employees vis-à-vis their counter parts in regular employment. They have been dislodged, contrary to the provisions of Rule 16(ii) of the Rules of 2022. 4. They also assert that impugned transfer orders have been passed in complete short shrift of even the most deserving cases of individual extreme hardships. 4.1. Averment also is that the transfer exercise has been carried out in the most mechanical manner, which on the face of it, though may not be punitive, but unwittingly many of the employees would have to relocate themselves to very far off places. Notwithstanding, that they are on the bottom of the pyramid of the human resource deployed by the respondents. Thus, a contractual class-III or IV, as the case may be, is being paid lesser that even the lowest pay-band, i.e. even less than the regular pay of a Class-III/IV employee, can financially ill afford to relocate his family and/or make alternative housing arrangements for them, besides other logistical hurdles requiring extra expenditure to resolve. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and perused all the case files. 6. First and foremost, the Rule 16 of the Rules of 2022, which is the subject matter of interpretation herein, may be seen. For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinbelow:- " 16. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and perused all the case files. 6. First and foremost, the Rule 16 of the Rules of 2022, which is the subject matter of interpretation herein, may be seen. For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinbelow:- " 16. General conditions, ethics and observance.- The person hired on contract shall.- (i) observe general satisfactory conduct and ethics at the level expected under orders/rules and instructions issued by higher authorities; (ii) not be transferred from one place to any other place; (iii) not accept any full time/part time employment or engage in any other work, business occupation or pursue any study course without prior approval of the Government; (iv) comply the instructions regarding uniform/livery, if issued, for which an amount fixed by the Administrative Department with the concurrence of the Finance Department shall be paid." 7. A perusal of the above leaves no manner of doubt that it states in as many words and, in no uncertain terms, in very unambiguous language that a persons hired on contract "shall" not be transferred from one place to any other place. The words used in the Rule need no further elaboration as they are self- explanatory. A bare reading of it, unequivocally envisages statutory stability to a contractual employee to serve at his current contractual place and an immunity from transfer. Reasons are not far to seek. Let us see how. 8. The benevolence (read- inability of state to accord regular pay scale) of providing such a statutory assurance from relocation from one place to another place is the meagre consolidated amount, which has been fixed as the monthly remuneration for a contractual employee. It is but natural that being paid much less than his counter part who is in the regular pay band, the contractual officials serving for the State are financially not in a position to afford relocation from place to another place. They can ill afford both logistically as well as financially such a change, which is detrimental not only to them but to the entire family. It was in this backdrop that Rule 16(ii) of the Rules of 2022 was enacted to provide them confidence to join on a contractual post. The legislative intent behind this provision is clear—it grants contractual employees a statutory stability to work at their contractual place by prohibiting their relocation. 9. It was in this backdrop that Rule 16(ii) of the Rules of 2022 was enacted to provide them confidence to join on a contractual post. The legislative intent behind this provision is clear—it grants contractual employees a statutory stability to work at their contractual place by prohibiting their relocation. 9. The rationale for this prohibition is both pragmatic and equitable. Contractual employees, being compensated at significantly lower rates than their regular counterparts, lack the financial flexibility to accommodate abrupt relocations. The meager remuneration fixed under their contractual terms is barely sufficient for sustenance at their existing postings. Imposing additional burdens of relocation disrupts not only their professional stability but also their family lives, exacerbating financial and logistical hardships. 10. Had the contractual officials known that they would be relocated during the contractual period, perhaps many of them would have opted for an alternative employment, for which they lost their chance at the relevant time, feeling secured by virtue of the statutory protection, as already noticed hereinabove. Therefore, the legitimate expectation of the contractual employees is totally justified and fortified by the plain language of the rule, ibid. 11. Moreover, contractual employees, as it is, work under constant sense of insecurity in the absence of any assurance of continuity in service till superannuation. Thus, administrative efficiency in their case must be balanced with the contractual rights and the statutory welfare envisioned by the legislature. Transfers in their case will not only lower their morale, but also adversely affect workplace productivity, as displaced contractual employees would struggle with adjustments, travel difficulties, and personal disruptions. It is thus in the interest of state as well as otherwise the fair governance demands that such contractual employees are not dislodged by impacting their livelihoods. 12. In the premise, the transfer orders, under challenge herein, since are violative of the letter, intent and spirit of what has been framed by the Legislature, therefore, deserve set to be aside qua the petitioners. It is accordingly so ordered. 13. The respondents are, however, at liberty to pass fresh orders qua the transfers of contractual employees as long as their place is not changed i.e. they are kept in the same town where they were originally hired, subject of course to the administrative exigency. 14. The writ petitions are disposed of, as above. 15. It is accordingly so ordered. 13. The respondents are, however, at liberty to pass fresh orders qua the transfers of contractual employees as long as their place is not changed i.e. they are kept in the same town where they were originally hired, subject of course to the administrative exigency. 14. The writ petitions are disposed of, as above. 15. Needless to say that the instant order shall apply only in those cases where the service conditions of the employees are governed by the Contractual Rules of 2022. 16. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.