2025:JHHC:29197 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.5218 of 2025 ------ Bhabataran Mahato, aged about 48 years, S/o Late Jagdish Mahato, Resident of Koyel Enclave, Block-A, Flat No.19, Burdwan Compound Near Shiv Mandir, PO & PS- Lalpur, District-Ranchi. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department, State of Jharkhand, office situated at Project Building Dhurwa, PO & PS, Dhurwa, Ranchi, District-Ranchi. 3. The Director State Urban Development Agency, JUPMI Urban Development Department Jharkhand, Office situated at HEC Dhurwa, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4. The Municipal Commissioner, Chas Municipal Corporation, PO & PS-Chas, District-Bokaro. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner : Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, AC to GP-II ------ 04/ 22nd September,2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the respondents as contained in Memo No.SUDA/AMRUT, (CMMU)-03/2017/480, whereby, according to the petitioner, his services has been terminated without any reason. 3. After hearing the parties at length, I find that the petitioner was appointed on contract on 07th June, 2016 by the respondents for a period of one-year w.e.f., 25th May, 2016. This period of one year was extended from time to time. Ultimately, even though, a recommendation was given to renew the contract but the same was not accepted by respondent authorities and his contract was terminated on 18.03.2020 vide Memo No.SUDA/AMRUT, (CMMU)-03/2017/14 (Annexure-6). 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was a contractual employee. The contract was for a period of one year which was being renewed from time to time. Now after the lapse of the last extended period, 2025:JHHC:29197 2 his contract was not renewed. The petitioner has got no right to continue, once a contract comes to an end or is not renewed. Further there is no vested right to get a contract renewed. Since there is no vested right, there is no illegality committed by the respondents. Further, the termination of the contract is not stigmatic also. 5. Another aspect which has been brought to the notice of this Court is that the contract of the petitioner was not renewed vide order dated 18.03.2020. The petitioner has approached this Court after more than five years by filing this writ petition. This delay is also fatal. 6. On cumulative consideration, I am of the opinion that no relief can be grated to this petitioner. 7. Thus, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 22nd September, 2025 Sandeep, cp2