Judgment The petitioner has approached this Court challenging order dated 02.05.2013 passed by the Block Development Officer. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Computer Operator on 09.11.2006 on the payment of honorarium of Rs.100/- per working day. Subsequently, honorarium was enhanced to Rs.5000/- per month. The petitioner and others similarly situated persons preferred W.P.(S) No. 7965 of 2012 seeking enhancement of honorarium. The honorarium has been enhanced to Rs.9500/- and was further enhanced to Rs.10,500/-, however, these were again not paid to the petitioner and when the petitioner moved this Court seeking a direction for enhancement of the honorarium, on a false plea the service of the petitioner has been terminated. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that after seven years of appointment, on a false pretext the service of the petitioner has been terminated. He has further submitted that, since the petitioner moved before this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 7985 of 2012 for this reason the service of the petitioner has been terminated. 5. Mr. Ashok Kumar, J.C to S.C.I, appearing for the State of Jharkhand has resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis. 6. On a perusal of the documents on record particularly the impugned order dated 02.05.2013, I find that since the contract of the petitioner was not renewed by the Block Development Officer and since she had mis-conducted herself by misbehaving with other employees and disobeying the order of the superiors, her service was dispensed with. Since the petitioner was appointed on contract basis and her contract was not renewed by the Block Development Officer, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 02.05.2013. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.