JUDGMENT : Valmiki J.Mehta, J. (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition, petitioner impugns the order dated 13.12.1999 passed by the respondent no.1/employer/Principal Resident Commissioner terminating the contractual period of services prematurely. This order dated 13.12.1999 reads as under:- “No./MPB/99 Date: 13-12-99 OFFICE ORDER The services of the Jagdeep Khanna, House Manager on contract basis at M.P. Bhawan, New Delhi are terminated with effect as his services are no more required on this post vide letter no. 3816/MPB/99. A cheque of Rs.10,000/- as a one month’s salary in lieu of termination of service as per the clause no.5 of appointment letter order no. 398/MPB/98 dt. 13.2.98 is attached here with vide no.253131 dated 13.12.99 of the Central Bank of India, payable at Ashoka Hotel Branch, New Delhi Sd/- Principal Resident Commissioner” 2. It is settled law that a contractual employee can always be terminated in terms of the contract. In the present case, appointment of the petitioner was in terms of the order dated 13.2.1998 and as per para-5 of which contract of services could be terminated by giving one month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof. 3. Petitioner’s services have been terminated by giving him one month’s notice and salary in lieu of termination. It is settled law that this Court cannot decide the satisfactory nature of service or otherwise of an employee and which is to be best decided by the employer. Once the services are contractual and they are terminated in accordance with the contract there can be no legal remedy to a petitioner such as the present. 4. I may also note that the impugned order is not a stigmatic order though the petitioner seems to contend so. In fact, it has been held by Supreme Court in various judgments being Muir Mills Unit of NTC (U.P.) Ltd. Vs. Swayam Prakash Srivastava & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 491 , State of W.B. and Others Vs. Tapas Roy (2006) 6 SCC 453 , Chaitanya Prakash and Anr. Vs. H. Omkarappa (2010) 2 SCC 623 and Abhijit Gupta Vs. S.N.B.National Centre, Basic Sciences & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 469 that termination orders cannot be stigmatic even if they specify that the services are not satisfactory or there is lack of competence etc. etc. 5. Tapas Roy (2006) 6 SCC 453 , Chaitanya Prakash and Anr. Vs. H. Omkarappa (2010) 2 SCC 623 and Abhijit Gupta Vs. S.N.B.National Centre, Basic Sciences & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 469 that termination orders cannot be stigmatic even if they specify that the services are not satisfactory or there is lack of competence etc. etc. 5. In view of above, there is no legal right in the petitioner to challenge the termination of his contractual services, as admittedly the services have been terminated in accordance with the contract by giving one month’s notice and salary in lieu of termination. Though the petitioner has raised various issues of his services being satisfactory and services of other employees not being satisfactory, I need not go into such aspects once the services of the petitioner are terminated in accordance with the contract. Also there is no legal right in the person to seek extension of contractual services, and which decision is ordinarily a sole privilege of the employer and courts do not substitute their views for that of the employer for not extending of contractual services. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.