JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The matter comes up on an application bearing No.38755/2019 filed by the respondent-employee to decide the writ petition in the light of the Circular dated 23rd October, 2013 issued by the Law and Legal Affairs Department (State Litigation) and also in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Executive Engineers and Ors. vs. Shri Babu Lal & Anr. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.234/2007) decided on 24th July, 2013. 2. The petitioner-employer, in the present writ petition, has challenged the award dated 11th March, 1999 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur. By the said award, the Labour Court has found that services of the respondent-employee was illegally terminated on 22nd August, 1986. The respondent-employee has been ordered to be reinstated back in the service by conferring all the benefits and full back-wages. 3. This Court while issuing notice of the writ petition on 6th July, 2000, stayed operation of the award to the extent of payment of back-wages. 4. This Court finds that the in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court on 6th July, 2000, the respondent-employee was reinstated back in the service in pursuance of the order dated 5th July, 2003 issued by the petitioner. The appointment order was issued to the respondent-employee on temporary basis for a period of six months and to keep him on probation. This Court finds that the respondent-employee is continuing in service since his appointment in July, 2003. This Court has further been informed that the said employee is going to attain the age of superannuation on 31st May, 2019. 5. Learned counsel Mr. BK Sharma submitted that respondent-employee was employed for very short duration i.e. on 22nd August, 1985 and his services were rightly terminated by the petitioner-employer. Learned counsel submitted that for short duration of working of the respondent-employee for about seven months, the Labour Court ought not to have awarded all the consequential benefits and back-wages. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent-employee was removed from service in the year 1986 and while passing the order in the year 1999 i.e. a period of about thirteen years, back-wages should not be awarded. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent-employee was removed from service in the year 1986 and while passing the order in the year 1999 i.e. a period of about thirteen years, back-wages should not be awarded. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee submitted that the award, which has been passed by the Labour Court does not require any interference by this Court and finding has been recorded that there was violation of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such, the respondent-employee was ordered to be reinstated back in service with all the consequential benefits. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Court finds that since the respondent-employee has already been reinstated back in service and he is continuously working and as such the award passed by the Labour Court needs to be modified. The respondent-employee is not found entitled for any back-wages and he is entitled only for reinstatement and the service, which he is rendering, is required to be counted for other service benefits like pension, etc. 7. The respondent-employee will be entitled for counting his service from the date of termination for the purpose of post retiral benefits and further his pay will also be fixed notionally. The respondent-employee will not be entitled for any arrears on account of his fixation on notional basis, however, the post retiral benefits will be counted on the basis of fixation of the respondent-employee on notional basis. 8. The award dated 11th March, 1999 is modified accordingly. 9. The present writ petition stands disposed of. 10. This disposes of the application bearing No. 38755/2019 as well.