JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, J. This petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the award dated 22.7.2006 passed in Case No.12/ID Act/03 reference directing reinstatement without back wages. 2. After perusal of the statement of claim as well as reply filed by the State Government, it is not in dispute that respondent was appointed on 1.5.1983 on daily wages on a vacant post. She discontinued from March, 1994 till 10.10.1994 to which an application was submitted due to ailment, however, accepting the genuineness of the absence she was allowed to continue from 1999 and her service was treated as continued. As per circular of the Government dated 14.2.2000 and 26.2.2000, scrutiny was made and because she was wrongly found appointee after 31.12.1988, her services were terminated on 30.3.2000. 3. It is urged that service of the respondent has been discontinued as per Government instructions following the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, therefore, she is not entitled to be reinstated, hardly, she may be entitled to claim compensation. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners upto a length and on perusal of the admitted facts of the case, it is apparent that the respondent was a appointee of 1.5.1983 prior to 31.12.1988. As per the G.A.D. circular dated 9.1.1990 the daily wagers who were appointed prior to 31.12.1988 are entitled for regularization, however, while regularizing other employees respondent was not regularized. 5. It is to be noted here that Government issued some circulars on 14.2.2000 and 26.2.2000 to discontinue the employees who were engaged after 31.12.1988, however, by a wrong scrutiny made by the respondent, she was treated to be appointee after 31.12.1988 and discontinued her services. Those Government circulars itself says such act on the part of the petitioners is contrary to the Government instructions. 6. In that view of the matter and looking to the finding as recorded by the Labour Court and also considering the fact that respondent being appointee prior to 31.12.1988, she is entitled for regularization. Therefore, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case wherein interference in the award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement without back wages not warranted. 7. Accordingly, this petition is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed.