ORDER : (Ananda Sen, J.) By filing this writ petition, petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the Office Order contained in Memo No.02 dated 02.03.2020 whereby and whereunder the Chief Executive Officer, Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank Ltd. (respondent No.4) has issued order terminating the services of the petitioners. Further prayer has been made to stay the impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents argued and put forth the grounds in support of their rival contentions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that though the nature of the job of the petitioners was contractual yet without a proper inquiry and without issuance of show cause, petitioners could not have been removed. It is their further case that the petitioners are working since long, which is undisputed. He further contended that the impugned order refers to three letters dated 27.07.2018, 11.02.2019 and 17.01.2020, but none of them were served to the petitioners and out of these letters, only letter dated 11.02.2019 could be obtained by them, though it was not served upon them. Learned counsel further contended that similarly situated employees are working in several branches of the Bank, but no action has been taken. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners were backdoor entrants and there was no advertisement prior to appointment of these petitioners. There was a complaint about their backdoor entry as they were very close to some of the employees of the Bank. Thereafter agreements of the petitioners were terminated on 02.03.2020. As per the counsel for the respondents, by efflux of time, the agreements were supposed to come to an end on 31.03.2020. 5. In order to consider the arguments of the parties, I have also gone through the records of the case. I find that it is an admitted case that the petitioners were contractual employees. It is an admitted case that the period of contract/agreement would have come to an end on 31.03.2020. This fact has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but he submitted that there was a chance of renewal. The allegation is that the appointment of the petitioners are by way of backdoor means without there being any advertisement, and, thus, their appointments are not irregular rather illegal. This fact has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but he submitted that there was a chance of renewal. The allegation is that the appointment of the petitioners are by way of backdoor means without there being any advertisement, and, thus, their appointments are not irregular rather illegal. It is the case of the respondents that the appointments were not transparent nor any minimum qualification was fixed, neither the reservation roaster was followed. 6. Alleging that the appointments are illegal and the petitioners have obtained employment by way of backdoor means, their contracts have been terminated. The employer, if wants to terminate the services of an employee, even if the employee so sought to be terminated is a contractual employee, on the ground of illegality of his appointment, then also a notice has to be given to the employee to put forth his/her case. In this case, without any notice, the services of the petitioners have been terminated by cancelling the contract of employment, thus, an illegality has been caused by the respondents. 7. Now, the next question, which falls for consideration is what would be the relief petitioners are entitled to. Admittedly, the contracts of the petitioners were to come to an end on 31 st March, 2020. Petitioners cannot claim extension of the said contract by way of vested right. Thus, this Court cannot presume that the respondents would have extended the period of contract or renewed the term. The fact remains that the petitioners were entitled to continue only till 31.03.2020 and not beyond the said date. The petitioners’ contracts were cancelled on 02.03.2020, i.e., 29 days ahead of the date of completion of their contracts. Since the petitioners’ contracts would have come to an end on 31.03.2020, today there cannot be any order to reinstate the petitioners. Petitioners, at best are entitled for their emoluments, which they were legally entitled to receive till 31.03.2020. Thus, I direct the respondents to pay the due emoluments of the petitioners till 31.03.2020. It is further made clear that termination of the contract of the petitioners will not come in the way of any future employments. 8. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.