JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. Appellants are the writ petitioners. It appears that they were appointed as Seasonal Workers by the Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation. It appears that they were engaged for a period of nine months as seasonal workers, subject to availability of work. They were, however, retrenched, according to the respondents on account of non-availability of work by the U.P. Forest Corporation by giving one month’s wage in lieu of the notice and retrenchment compensation. There is no dispute that the appellants challenged the said termination order before the Labour Court, Haridwar and the Labour Court, after hearing the parties, passed the award dated 31.07.2013, whereby, the Labour Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners with 25% back-wages after adjusting the retrenchment compensation (See Ground B of the writ petition). It is also not in dispute that the respondents challenged the aforesaid award before the High Court and the High Court disposed of the matter by directing the respondents to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioners as compensation in lieu of their reinstatement and back-wages (See Ground –C in the writ petition). It is equally beyond dispute that the appellants and other challenged the judgment of the High Court before the Hon’ble Apex Court, but the Special Leave Petition stood dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court (See Ground –D of the writ petition). In the present writ petition, the cause of action appears to be built around the termination notice dated 26.06.1995, wherein, according to the appellants, it was mentioned that they were to give their address to the Corporation so that if in future the work is available, the Corporation can appoint them according to their seniority. It is the case of the appellants that there are several posts available and, therefore, they should be reinstated in terms of the notice, which we have adverted to. It is stated that they had moved a representation, and their representation came to be decided by Annexure-8, wherein it is stated that there are 768 posts of scalar, but 1289 workers are working and there are 229 posts of Chowkidar/Mali/Postman/Peon/Orderly, but 1090 workers are working and, now there is no vacant post in the Department, therefore, the appellants cannot be given appointment in the Department. 2. Appellants, in fact, sought a mandamus quashing the order dated 20.11.2015 and also sought a mandamus to direct respondent no. 2. Appellants, in fact, sought a mandamus quashing the order dated 20.11.2015 and also sought a mandamus to direct respondent no. 3 to comply with the conditions in the notice dated 26.6.1995, keeping in mind the order dated 20.12.2014 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Forest Corporation. 3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 4. We heard Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Virendra Kaparwan, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. We have already narrated the facts leading to the dismissal of the Special Lave Petition rendering the decision of the High Court final, by which interfering with the order of the Tribunal, Rs. 1,50,000/- was directed to be paid in lieu of retrenchment compensation, which was accepted by the appellants. Therefore, the termination of the appellants stood confirmed. The only case set-up by the appellants is based on the promise to provide them employment should there be work available. In this regard, we notice that in the pleadings before the learned Single Judge in the form of the counter affidavit of the respondents, the following stand has been taken by the respondents: “9. That in reply to the contents of para 9, 10, 11 & 12 of the writ petition it is submitted here that the answering respondents have not given appointment on the post in which the employees are still surplus, the answering respondents has given the appointment through outsourcing on the post of computer operator, drivers and guards etc. therefore, the plea of the petitioners that the answering respondents have given appointment to others but not appointed them is misconceived. The answering respondents have no such post available to adjust or give opportunity to the petitioners. The employees on the post of scalers and chaukidars are still surplus therefore, the petitioners cannot be given appointment as the post is not available and accordingly rejected the representation moved by the petitioners. The copy of the structure is being filed as Annexure no. CA-1 to this affidavit.” 6. We notice that this is the stand, which is also substantially reiterated before us by the learned counsel for the respondents. Denial of Paragraph - 9 of the counter affidavit is contained in Paragraph-6 of the rejoinder affidavit, which reads as follows: “6. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. CA-1 to this affidavit.” 6. We notice that this is the stand, which is also substantially reiterated before us by the learned counsel for the respondents. Denial of Paragraph - 9 of the counter affidavit is contained in Paragraph-6 of the rejoinder affidavit, which reads as follows: “6. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 9, 10, 11 of the counter affidavit it is submitted that since the respondents stated in para under reply that they gave appointment on the post of Guards. The respondents gave the name of the post of chowkidar and scalar as guard. Since the respondents stated in order dated 20-11-2015 that there are 768 post of scalar, but 1289 workers are working and there are 229 post of Chowkidar/Mali/Postman/Peon/Orderly, but 1090 workers are working, therefore, the matter should be referred to the state agency to conduct an inquiry in the matter.” 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would, no doubt, try to draw support from the order passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Forest Corporation in the year 2014. The stand of the respondents is that the same is not binding. By the said order, it appears that similarly situated persons have been taken back by the U.P. Forest Corporation, but here, we are dealing with the cause of action as against the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, which is the respondent. Their stand is set out as stated hereinbefore and their stand appears to be that in the posts, for which the appellants can claim any right on the basis of the terms of the notice, no appointments have been made, appointments instead have been made in respect of other categories. 8. In such circumstances, we see no reason to interfere. The Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.