JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - The Petitioner, who was working as Typist-cum-Clerk, NCUI Cooperative Education Field Project, Cuttack, has filed this Writ Petition challenging the Order Dated 14.3.2008 passed by the Chief Executive of National Co-operative Union of India, O.P.1, deciding not to extend her contractual period which was expired on 31.3.2008 (Annexure-15). 2. The brief facts leading to this Writ Petition are that the Petitioner was engaged as Typist-cum-Clerk purely on contractual basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 4330/- per month for a period of one year with certain terms and conditions and one of such conditions is that her services can be terminated without any prior notice within the period of one year, vide the Office Memorandum dated 4.8.2000 (Annexure-1). The period of service of the Petitioner was extended from time to time. In terms of the Order Dated 4.9.2003, she was sanctioned the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590/- with effect from 1.9.2003 and she was allowed to draw her annual increment. Her Service Book was opened and statutory deductions were made by the O.Ps. On 13.7.2005, O.P.3 - the Project Officer, National Co-operative Union of India, Cuttack, wrote a letter to her stating that she was attending the office late and leaving it before time despite verbal instruction not to do so, to which she replied. Again on 9.11.2005 the Petitioner was communicated that she availed leave without prior permission and was asked to submit explanation within three days. Accordingly, she submitted explanation under Annexure-9. Likewise, several show cause notices were issued to the Petitioner and accordingly, she filed show cause replies. Ultimately, she was discontinued from service from 31.3.2008. The same type of problem continued, for which there are several communications between the Petitioner and the Project Officer. On one hand the Project Officer was making allegations against the Petitioner, on the other hand, replies were given to the Petitioner in refuting the same. However, when the Petitioner was continuing as such, the order in Annexure-15 dated 14.3.2008 was issued before expiry of her contractual period. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the O.Ps. stating therein that, the Petitioner was appointed purely on contractual basis, for which she was not entitled to the relief as prayed for. However, when the Petitioner was continuing as such, the order in Annexure-15 dated 14.3.2008 was issued before expiry of her contractual period. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the O.Ps. stating therein that, the Petitioner was appointed purely on contractual basis, for which she was not entitled to the relief as prayed for. Apart from that, it is also stated that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of party, i.e., Union of India as the entire fund comes from the Central Government. According to the O.Ps., the Petitioner was regularly irregular in attending and leaving the Office and was disobedient to her superior authorities, for which the Project Officer issued several letters about her irregularity in attendance as well as disobedience of order. But as the Petitioner failed to correct herself, the impugned order was passed. That apart, the Petitioner was allowed to serve in the Department till the end of Contractual period, i.e., 31.3.2008. 4. Mr. A.K. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that in the office Order Dated 25.7.2002 in Annexure-3, while extending the service of the Petitioner on contractual basis, it was also indicated that further extension would be sanctioned only on the basis of the satisfactory Work performance of the incumbent and continuation of the Project. According to Mr. Mishra, the Project is continuing and the Petitioner is entitled to get extension despite the impugned Order Dated 14.3.2008 which was passed with mala-fide-intention and without giving an opportunity of hearing to her. 5. On perusal of the Order Dated 14.3.2008 in Annexure-15, we find that the contractual employment of the Petitioner was not extended due to certain allegations levelled against her. From all the annexures enclosed with this Writ Petition, we find that the Petitioner was served with some letters drawing her attention to the irregularity, committed by her and replies to that effect were also given by her. But natural justice demands that the Petitioner should have been given an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order not extending her contractual period beyond 31.3.2008. However, all these became academic since the contractual period of service of the Petitioner has been over by now. In our considered opinion, the adverse remarks made in the office order (Annexure-15) should be expunged. We accordingly expunge the same. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of. However, all these became academic since the contractual period of service of the Petitioner has been over by now. In our considered opinion, the adverse remarks made in the office order (Annexure-15) should be expunged. We accordingly expunge the same. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of. R.N. Biswal, J. I agree.