2025:JHHC:36267 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1423 of 2022 1. Raju Saw, aged about 31 years, son of Suklal Saw, resident of village Brinda, P.O Rupaydih, P.S. Birni, District- Giridih. 2. Niraj Kumar, aged about 31 years, Son of Anirudh Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-Giribarwadih, P.O. and P.S.-Simaria, District-Giridih. 3. Bhola Prasad Mahto, aged about 36 years, Son of Tokan Prasad Mahto, Resident of Mohalla-Krishna Nagar behind Bus Stand, P.O. and P.S.- Bagodar, District-Giridih. 4. Subodh Kumar Verma, aged about 34 years, Son of Rameshwar Prasad Verma, Resident of Village-Sirsa, P.O.-Kurhobind, P.S.-Jamua, District- Giridih. 5. Md. Tabrej Alam, aged about 33 years, Son of Md. Yunush Ansari, Resident of Village-Mokamo, P.O.-Koridih, P.S.-Saria, District-Giridih. 6. Ravindra Kr. Barnwal, aged about 31 years, Son of Saryu Lal Barnwal, Resident of Village-Kakni, P.O.-Gungi, P.S.-Tisri, District-Giridih. … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Secretary, Department of Information Technology and E-governance at Government of Jharkhand, at Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. The Secretary, Department of Planning and Finance, Government of Jharkhand at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 5. The Director, Department of Information Technology and E-governance at Government of Jharkhand, at Dhurwa, Ranchi. 6. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum at Chakradharpur, P.O and P.S- Chakradharpur, District- West Singhbhum ... Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Kanti Kr. Ojha, Advocate. . For the State: Mr. Barun Prabhakar, AC to GP-III. ------ 10/03.12.2025: Heard the parties. 2. By filing this petition, the petitioners have prayed to absorb them in service and depute on the post on which, they had working since 2017 on contract basis. 3 After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that admittedly the petitioners were appointed on contract basis as Block Level e- Manager. As per Annexure-A as contained in Memo No. 2878 dated 4.10.2027 of the counter affidavit, filed by respondent No. 3, the appointment was initially for six months, to be extended for further period of one year provided their services were satisfactory. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner worked for two years and thereafter the contract of all the contractual workers were not renewed on the ground that there is no budgetary allocation for the said post as the same was not extended. It is also evident from Annexure-5 to the writ petition that the appropriate authority had sanctioned the post against which, the petitioners were working only for one year. There was no extension beyond that period. 5. Thus, from the records., it is clear that budgetary allocation was not for any permanent post rather it was for the fixed tenure and now there is no budgetary allocation. In absence of budgetary allocation the contracts of the petitioners were closed. It is the prerogative of the employer to create or abolish any post, as per the financial condition of the employer. The petitioners who were appointed only for a year cannot claim continuance beyond the initial period as a matter of right. Further in absence of any budgetary allocation , this Court also cannot mandate the State to create any post to continue the petitioners. Giving such direction will amount to interfering with the policy making power of the State, which is not permissible. 6. In view of the observation made above, I find no merit in this writ petition, according, this writ petition is dismissed. 7. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. 3rd December, 2025 (ANANDA SEN, J.) Anu/-Cp2. Uploaded on: 05.12.2025 -2.-