ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to absorb/regularize their services under Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in view of the fact that they were discharging their duties to the utter satisfaction of the respondents for last several years. Further prayer has been made to quash the letter dated 30.06.2017 issued by the Chief Security, ECL Head Quarter by which the services of the petitioners on contractual basis have been terminated. Petitioners have also prayed that till the final decision with regard to absorption/regularization of their services is taken, they be allowed to continue to discharge their duties on contractual basis. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioners were initially engaged through various Security Agencies like Green Leaf Security Services, BGS Security & Allied Service, etc. under Rajmahal Area of the respondents-ECL during the year 2004-2009 and Identity Cards were issued to them by the concerned Agencies. Thereafter, on 30.08.2011, ECL has terminated contract of BGS Security & Allied Service and had entered into a new contract with Loknath Security. The respondent-ECL had directed the said Security Agency to issue fresh Identity Cards in favour of the present petitioners. It is the further case of the petitioners that again on 30.06.2015, the respondent-ECL has terminated the contract of Loknath Security and signed a new contract with Uttarakhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. and again directed the new Agency to issue fresh Identity Cards to the present petitioners. It is the specific case of the petitioners that though they are discharging their duties for last several years but only to defeat the claim of the petitioners for regularization, the respondent-ECL has from time to time entered into with new contracts with new Security Agencies. Finally, vide letter dated 30.06.2017, issued to the Chief Security, ECL (Headquarter), the services of the petitioners who were working on contractual basis have been terminated. The petitioners have requested on several occasions for regularization of their services but no heed was paid to their said request. Hence, this writ application has been filed by the petitioner for redressal of their grievances. 4. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that ECL being State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India has no authority to terminate the contract by giving false statement. Hence, this writ application has been filed by the petitioner for redressal of their grievances. 4. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that ECL being State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India has no authority to terminate the contract by giving false statement. The petitioners are entitled for regularization/absorption under ECL in view of the fact that contractual appointment of the petitioners were not in accordance with the provision of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and as the petitioners were engaged in violation of the aforesaid Act, the petitioners should not be treated as contract labour of ECL. Since the petitioners were directly appointed by the ECL as per law, termination of their services by making false statement is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents if in future decides to take services of security personnel through contractual employment in that case also the petitioners be allowed to discharge their duties till regular appointment is made. 5. On the other hand though no counter-affidavit has been filed but Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis through different Security Agencies and the respondents has from time to time entered into new contracts with different Security Agencies and the petitioners were allowed to work under the aforesaid Agencies. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioners were appointed by the respondents. Learned counsel further argues that at present the respondents have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the State Govt. by which the Govt. has provided Home Guards at the various sites of the ECL for security purposes and hence, since there is no need of engaging the petitioners on contractual basis, rightly the respondents have terminated their contractual engagement vide letter dated 30.06.2017. Learned counsel lastly submits that there is no merit in the instant writ application and as such, the same is fit to be dismissed outrightly. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference. Admittedly, the petitioners have approached this Court for regularization of their service. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference. Admittedly, the petitioners have approached this Court for regularization of their service. However, from perusal of the records it is apparent that the appointments of the petitioners were made on contract basis through Outside Agencies but since the respondents presently entered into an MoU with the State Govt. by which the Govt. has deputed its Home Guards at the various sites of the respondent-ECL, rightly the engagement of the petitioners have been terminated by the respondents.. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 held that the State Government, in no circumstance, can regularise the services of contractual employees. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, there is no illegality or any infirmity in issuance of letter dated 30.06.2017 and also in not considering the cases of the petitioners for regularization, since they were working on contract basis under the Outside Agencies and the contract has come to an end. 9. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.