ORDER NAVIN SINHA, J. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent – Board. 2. The present appeal arises from order dated 15.04.2013 dismissing C.W.J.C. No. 6633 of 2013. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order of termination dated 17.01.2013 of the contractual appointment of the appellant, opining that the appointment itself had come to an end of 31.12.2012 as there was no order of renewal thereafter. It was observed that it shall not debar the appellant to be considered for future appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the termination is stigmatic on allegations. It was therefore, necessary to give her a show cause notice with an opportunity to file a reply and then a reasoned order could be passed. In absence of which the order for termination of even a contractual appointment is bad. 4. By an order dated 22.06.2012 it was decided to continue with service of all contractual employees till further orders. On 25.04.2013, all contractual appointments have been extended till 31.12.2013. In other words, the appellant would be deemed to have been in service under a valid contract on 17.01.2013. Hence, the need for compliance with natural justice also by show cause and consideration of reply. If the contractual appointment had expired there was no occasion for the respondent to say in the impugned order that her services were being terminated. 5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the appeal submitting that it warranted no interference and natural justice had been complied with. 6. A person in regular government service and one appointed on contract form separate class. While the former has security of tenure under the relevant service rules, the latter is governed by the terms of the contract. The conditions of service, the salary etc. of the two are all different. The rigorous standard that will govern the relationship between a permanent employee and the government shall not be the same with regard to a contractual appointment. The latter will be governed by the terms of the contract and all that the court shall see is whether the action of the respondents was arbitrary, without reason, of a nature which no reasonable person would have done. 7. What natural justice shall mean, will always depend upon the facts of the case. The latter will be governed by the terms of the contract and all that the court shall see is whether the action of the respondents was arbitrary, without reason, of a nature which no reasonable person would have done. 7. What natural justice shall mean, will always depend upon the facts of the case. The connotation of the words natural justice for a person in regular service, shall be entirely different from one on contract. Natural Justice for the former would mean compliance with the service rules and constitutional protection. For the latter, it shall only mean reasonable and appropriate opportunity. 8. The order dated 17.01.2013 states that a consumer had submitted an application for load enhancement. The appellant asked for deposit of Rs. 3,500 and offered a receipt of Rs. 2,100/- only. The order then states that the consumer, for the purpose of enquiry, was taken to the office where the appellant was posted and the appellant was permitted to put forth her version also. In our opinion, once the appellant was permitted to put forth and her version taken in presence of the consumer, principles of natural justice stood complied. 9. In (2003) 4 SCC 557 (Canara Bank v. Debasis Das) the essential attribute of natural justice, an opportunity of defense was explained as follows :- “Natural justice is another name for common-sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common-sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form”. 10. We may not be understood to have confirmed the allegations as a finding against the appellant. She was a contract employee, and if the principal did not consider her fit for retention, we cannot compel it to enter into an unwilling contract especially when the reasons cannot be rejected as irrelevant. The learned Single Judge has already given a benefit to the appellant by observing that it will not prejudice her in future employment. 11. She was a contract employee, and if the principal did not consider her fit for retention, we cannot compel it to enter into an unwilling contract especially when the reasons cannot be rejected as irrelevant. The learned Single Judge has already given a benefit to the appellant by observing that it will not prejudice her in future employment. 11. On the own showing of the appellant, there was no subsisting contract on the date of termination i.e. 17.01.2013 as the contract of others was renewed subsequently on 25.04.2013 with retrospective effect. If the appellant stood terminated in the meantime, it is difficult to accept the submission that she should first be reinstated by virtue of the retrospective renewal as given to others before any further issues could be considered. Furthermore, we find from the order dated 25.04.2013 that the contract has been renewed of those, whose services were found satisfactory. We have already discussed that the respondents were not satisfied with the discharge of duties by the appellant as a contract employee. 12. In conclusion, we find no reason to interfere with the order under appeal. The appeal is dismissed.