JUDGMENT RAJESH TANDON, J. : By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a• writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.6.97. Brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid• writ petition are that the respondent No.2 was a work of charged employee and by virtue of the order passed by the State of U.P dated 7.2.97 daily wage employees were entitled to be regularised, who has completed 240 days of work on or before 1.1.1993 and further who were in continues service even on the date of the order i.e. 7.2.97. It was also mentioned that for daily wage employees seniority as well as suitability will be the criteria for putting them under work charged employment. In order to decide the suitability and seniority a Committee of Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer, and three Assistant Engineer has to be constituted on the chairmanship of superintending engineer in each circle. 2. It was also stated that the orders dated on 7.2.97 and 24.2.97 were issued in compliance of the order passed by the Apex Court in case of Raj Narain Prasad v. State of U.P Civil Misc. writ petition No. 140/89 in which on 18.1.96 the following orders was passed are quoted below :- "That takes us to the question regarding the regularization of muster roll employees. Because they can only stand next to work charge employees, we would recommend that they could be absorbed as work charge employees to the extent or at a certain percentage of posts falling vacant at the latter being regularized under the scheme. That would satisfy a certain percentage of the category of daily wage muster roll employees also. We would like the State to undertake somehow of the cadre strength by March this year and thereafter in December every year so that budgetary support could be provided for in the next financial year for the added strength to the cadre. With these observations and recommendation, we approve the scheme but we would once again impress upon the State that the spirit of our observations in Piara Singh's case should be observed. The petitions shall stand disposed of accordingly. New Delhi (January 18, 1996). 3. The State of U.P has challenged the award on the ground that the respondent No. 2 as daily wage employees has no right/lien to the post. The petitions shall stand disposed of accordingly. New Delhi (January 18, 1996). 3. The State of U.P has challenged the award on the ground that the respondent No. 2 as daily wage employees has no right/lien to the post. It was also stated that the respondent No.2 was not working in the organization as class IV employees on 1.1.93. 4. The Presiding Officer Labour Court has passed the order that the termination of the respondent' No. 2 from 13 September, 1998 was wholly illegal and the direction was also made for restatement with back wages of 50%. The presiding officer has also directed that the employee concerned may be taken in the category of work charge employee. The findings of the Prescribed Authority are quoted below: - 5. A perusal of the order shows that the respondent No.2 has completed more than 240 days. The presiding officer has also come to the conclusion that the respondent No.2 has worked for more than 240 days and therefore the present dispute is fully covered under the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act, and the respondent No. 2 was entitled for the benefit of having worked for more than 240 days. He is liable to be absorbed in the employee of work charged category. 6. I find no infirmity in the order passed by the presiding officer. So as to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The observations of the Apex Court in Raj Narain Prasad and others v. The State of U. P. and others Writ Petition d No. 140/89 are as under: "That takes us to the question regarding the regularization of muster roll employees. Because they can only stand next to work charged employees. We would recommend that they could be absorded as work charge employee to the extent or at a certain percentage of posts falling vacant at the latter being regularized under the scheme. That would satisfy a certain percentage of the category of daily wage/muster roll employees also. We would like the State to undertake somehow of the cadre strength by March this year and thereafter in December every year so that budgetary support could be provided for in the next financial year for the added strength to the cadre. That would satisfy a certain percentage of the category of daily wage/muster roll employees also. We would like the State to undertake somehow of the cadre strength by March this year and thereafter in December every year so that budgetary support could be provided for in the next financial year for the added strength to the cadre. With these observations and recommendations, we approve the scheme but we would once again impress upon the State that spirit of our observations in Piara Singh's case should be observed. The petitions shall stand disposed of accordingly." There is also on the record the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 on paragraphs No.8, 9, 10 which reads as under: Paragraph-8. "That the Chief Engineer (Uttarakhand), Dehradun (Uttaranchal) had Chief Engineer/Director who is also submitted to work as Director of Academy, Kalagarh, instructed the authorities concerned vide their letter No.435/mu. Ac. (O.Kha) at 30.12.2000. N. 5917/mu. As dated 15.1.2001 to regularize/absorb the muster roll employees in work charge establishment as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and C. O. Bo. 691 dated 7.2.97 aforesaid letter are enclosed as Annexure No.5 and to the supplementary aforesaid. Paragraph-9. "That it is submitted the authorities concerned have assured the deponents on 24.1.2001 to issue the necessary order regarding regularization as operation in the work charge establishment very shortly. The letter or deponent addressed to Chief Engineer/ Director in appreciation of the geusturo is enclosed as Annexure No. 7 to the supplementary aforesaid affidavit. Paragraph-10. "That to create conducive atmosphere and goodwill have decided fully and finally to withdraw the claim of back wages/writ expenses, if the Director or Deputy Director State Engineering Academy Kalagarh, Pauri Garhwal do the best of regularization of Work Charge Employees and Muster roll Labour Employee in the Project above." 7. Standing Counsel has also informed that in view of the Award passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court, employee concern is regularly working. Further it made clear that if the respondent No.2 has received any benefits arising out of the order of Presiding Officer, the same will not come in his way and he will be entitled to have the fruits of the order passed by the Labour Court. Further in view of the statement made aforesaid in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit. Further in view of the statement made aforesaid in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit. The respondent No.2 will not be entitled to claim further any benefits with regard to the back wages. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts the authorities concern having already complied the order passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court and has also paid back wages, and find no infirmity in the order passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court. Consequently no interference is made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.