JUDGMENT

SINGH, J. :— This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat dated 28-2-1986 (reported in 1987 Lab IC 143) allowing the re-spondents writ petition and quashing order of discharge from service and directing his reinstatement in service.

2. The respondent joined service as technical assistant with the Gujarat State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). He was promoted to the post of Deputy Engineer. While he was posted at Surat as Deputy Engineer he was transferred to Ukai sub-division under the order of the Superintending Engineer dated 29th March, 1974. Pursuant to the order of transfer he was relieved from his duties at Surat on 30th March, 1974 to enable him to join at Ukai. He made representation to the Additional Chief Engineer for cancelling his transfer order on the ground that his mother aged 70 years was ailing and it would cause great inconvenience to him if he was required to join at Ukai. His representation was rejected and he was directed to join at Ukai but he did not do so instead he filed a civil suit at Baroda challenging validity of the order of transfer. Meanwhile, the Chief Engineer by his order dated 27th May, 1974 discharged the respondent from service with effect from 31st March, 1974 in accordance with Service Regulation No. 113. The respondent challenged the validity of the order of his discharge from service by means of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Gujarat. A learned single Judge of the High Court quashed the order of termination on the findings that the order of discharge was issued in violation of the basic principles of natural justice as no opportunity was afforded to the respondent before discharging him from services under Regulation No. 113. The learned single Judge granted a declaration in respondents favour holding the order void and illegal but having regard to recalcitrant attitude of the appellant and his continued conduct of disobedience of the orders of his superior authorities, he refused to grant consequential reliefs regarding reinstatement or payment of back-wages. The respondent as well as the appellant-Board, both preferred Letters Patent appeals against the order of learned single Judge. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants but it allowed the respondents appeal. The Division Bench upheld the order of the learned single Judge holding the order of discharge illegal and void but it set aside the order of the learned single Judge refusing to grant consequential relief instead it directed the appellants to reinstate the respondent, and to treat him in service without any break in service and to grant him benefits of increments, seniority, and promotion to which he may be entitled under the rules. The Bench, however, did not grant full back-wages to the respondent instead it directed the Board to pay him 50 per cent of back-wages. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal after obtaining special leave of this Court.

3. This appeal came up for hearing before us on 28th January, 1988 and on that day Sh. B. K. Mehta, Advocate appearing for the appellants and Sh. Vimal Dave, Advocate, appearing for the respondent were fully heard. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we were satisfied that the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench both had committed error in allowing the writ petition and granting relief to the respondent. We expressed our view in the Court and suggested to Mr. Vimal Dave, counsel for the respondent, that if he agreed the original writ petition of the respondent could be dismissed without directing him to refund the amount which he had already been paid by the appellants in pursuance to the orders of the High Court and of this Court as during the pendency of the appeal, the appellants were directed by means of interim order of this Court to continue to pay salary to the respondent wh