Rajiv Shakdher, J.

1. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Mr Vikram Nandrajog, learned counsel for the respondent, has assisted me in the matter and taken me through the record. The prayer in the petition is directed against the order dated 19.10.2000 passed by the respondent in appeal preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 29.07.1999. To be noted, since the writ petitioner had also preferred a review qua the order dated 19.10.2000 an order was passed by the respondent dated 13.03.2001 whereby the review petition was also dismissed.

1.1 The present writ petition, which is in a sense the second round of litigation, was filed to impugn the order dated 13.03.2001 passed in the review petition.

1.2 The earlier writ petition filed, which was numbered as WP(C) No. 3624/2001 did not impugn the order passed in review and hence the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.03.2002. Consequently, the present writ petition came to be filed challenging the three orders, which are referred to hereinabove.

2. Briefly, the writ petitioner’s case is that he had joined the respondent’s predecessor-in-interest, the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking in 1968 as