- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a review petition filed by the appellant Electricity Board, seeking review of the Judgement dated 25.8.1999 in LPA No. 391 of 1998. The events leading to the filing of the review petition are set out hereinafter: The respondent was selected and appointed as a Graduate Trainee by the appellant Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Electricity Board") on 26.11.1976. After completion of the training on 12.1.1978, he was sent for medical examination. The Medical Board gave its opinion on 8.8.1978 that the respondent was having visual impairment known as "high myopia fundus". On the basis of the medical report, the Electricity Board took a decision to dispense with the services of the respondent by an order dated 29.8.1978. The respondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed. The LPA filed by the respondent was also dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent preferred special leave petition [SLP (C) No. 6068 of 1978] in this Court. Pending the SLP, it appears that an interim direction was given to depute the respondent for fresh medical examination by the Central Medical Board. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Medical Board submitted its report to the effect that the respondent did not suffer from any ailment which made him physically unfit to perform his duties. The special leave petition was disposed of on 10.9.1990, recording the statement of the Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Electricity Board that on completion of one year's training, as per the rules of the Electricity Board, the question of the respondent's regularisation "will be seriously and sympathetically considered". Accordingly, the appellant Board issued an order dated 5.1.1991, appointing the respondent until further orders, as Assistant Engineer (Trainee) in the Generation Wing, on a fixed stipend and the respondent, along with other candidates, was required to undergo training at the Training Institute in Korba. After the completion of the said training, the respondent was appointed as Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 15.2.1992. He was thereafter confirmed on the post of Assistant Engineer. The respondent then represented on 10.2.1995 that he should not have been treated as a fresh appointee and deputed for training as he had already undergone the training in the year 1976-77 itself. The said representation did not evoke any response from the Electricity Board.
(3.) The second round of litigation is generated by the refusal of the Electricity Board to consider the above representation of the respondent, leading to the filing of a fresh writ petition praying for a direction to regularise his services as Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 20.12.1976 and to grant him all consequential benefits. This writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 22.9.1998. The High Court found no justification in requiring the petitioner (respondent herein) to undergo fresh training when he had already completed the training in the year 1978. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the Electricity Board cannot take advantage of its own wrong in terminating the services of the respondent on the ground of medical unfitness. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the writ petitioner was entitled to be appointed in the year 1978 and he is also "entitled to all the benefits for the period for which he was constrained to remain out" because of the wrong report submitted by the Medical Board. The Electricity Board carried the matter in appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the LPA by its order dated 25.8.1999. While substantially upholding the order of the learned Single Judge, the appeal was partly allowed and the arrears of salary from 1978 to 1992 was reduced to 50%. The arrears of salary were directed to be paid within three months failing which 15% interest was to be paid. With that modification, the LPA was dismissed. It appears that aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of the High Court in LPA reducing the quantum of arrears of salary, the respondent preferred the SLP which was dismissed in limine on 9.5.2000.;