Hima Kohli, J.

1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 9.11.2013 and letter dated 21.11.2013 issued to the respondent No.3/Company, terminating her services to the post of Assistant Manager-BD w.e.f. 9.11.2013, on “business grounds” and informing her that the amounts due and payable to her had been transferred to her account towards full and final settlement. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to reinstate her with all the consequential benefits and consider her case for regularization in terms of the Resolution dated 3.9.2013, passed by the Board of Directors of the respondent No.3/Company. Lastly, the petitioner has sought directions to the respondents to grant her relief as granted to the similarly placed contractual employees of the respondent No.3/Company, in terms of the Memorandum dated 12.7.2013.

2. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner had sought leave to confine the relief in the present petition to prayers (a) & (b). So the last relief mentioned above has not been pressed by the petitioner.

3. The facts of the case in a nutshell, are that on 24.7.2009, the petitioner was employed by the respondent No.1/Company, as an Executive Grade-II on a salary of Rs.17,000/- per month, vide Employment Agreement dated 24.7.2009 (in short ‘the Agreement’). The said Agreement was valid for a period of two years commencing from 24.7.2009 and was extendable by mutual consent. Clause 4 of the said Agreement laid down the grounds on which the petitioner’s contracts could be terminated.

4. As per the petitioner, she was working to the satisfaction of her superiors in the respondent No.3/Company and accordingly, w.e.f. 1.4.2010, her salary was revised from Rs.17,000/- per month to Rs.25,000/- per month, in terms of the letter dated 14.5.2010. Vide letter dated 1.7.2011, the petitioner was designated as an Assistant Manager w.e.f. 1.4.2011 and her salary was revised from Rs.25,000/- per month to Rs.27,500/- per month. It was however clarified that all the other terms and conditions of her employment/contract would remain unchanged. On 7.7.2011, the petitioner’s salary was revised to Rs.30,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.2011.

5. On 26.7.2011, the respondent No.3/Company had informed the petitioner that it had decided to extend her service agreement for a period of two years, w.e.f. 24.7.2011, on the earlier terms and conditions. The period of two years reckoned from 24.7.2011, would have expired on 23.7.2013. However, prior thereto, vide letter dated 9.7.2013, the respondent No.3/Company had informed the petitioner that they had decided to extend her service agreement for a further period of six months w.e.f. 24.7.2013. But, before the expiry of the period of six months, all of a sudden, on 9.11.2013, the respondent No.3/Company informed the petitioner in writing that her services as Assistant Manager-BD would cease with immediate effect on “business grounds” and she would be paid one month’s salary in lieu of the notice period.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 11.11.2013 to the respondent No.3/Company stating inter alia that the termination letter being contrary to the terms of Clause 4.1 of the Agreement, was invalid. The said letter was duly replied to by the respondent No.3/Company on 21.11.2013, wherein it was asserted that the cessation had taken place within the framework of the Agreement executed between the parties and that an amount of Rs.1,41,009/- had been transferred to the petitioner’s account towards full and final settlement. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

7. Mr. Ankur Chibber, learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the termination of the petitioner’s service could have taken place only in accordance with the terms of Clause 4 of the Agreement that had laid down the grounds available for termination. However, the ground invoked by the