ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was appointed as General Manager under Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”) Patna vide Memo No. 9309 dated 09.11.1989 on contract basis for two years. He, however, continued on the said post till 30.11.2003 after completing the age of 58 years. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that, the age of superannuation for the employees of the Corporation has been held to be 60 years and, therefore, the petitioner should have been allowed to continue up to 30.11.2005. In such circumstance, this application has been filed for a direction to the Corporation to treat the petitioner to have retired on 30.11.2005. 4. As has been noted above, the petitioner’s appointment was for two years on contractual basis. The petitioner cannot claim by way of any legal right to hold the said post after two years, though he continued for several years thereafter. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a decision taken by the Chairman, Bureau of Public Enterprises, under the Finance Department, Government of Bihar to submit that the Bureau had taken a decision to remove the word “contract” from the letters of appointment issued for appointment in the Corporation. 6. From the facts noted above, it is evident that petitioner was appointment on contractual basis. The letter dated 26.09.2006 (Annexure-6) upon which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot apply in the petitioner’s case as the said letter was made applicable only to such appointments which were made on the basis of recommendation of Bureau of Public Enterprises. It is not the petitioner’s case that he was appointed on the recommendation of the Bureau on contract basis. 7. In any event, this writ application was filed in the year 2008. Even as per the petitioner’s case, he would have retired on 30.11.2005. Admittedly, the petitioner did not work during the period 30.11.2003 to 30.11.2005. In such circumstance, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 8. This application is accordingly dismissed.