ORDER : Shivaraj V. Patil, J. - These two appeals were filed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board (hereinafter called "the Board") assailing the validity and correctness of the impugned orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently, the Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Hyderabad being successor to the said Board was allowed to be substituted. The respondents herein were the employees of the Board. They remained unauthorisedly absent for a long period. Invoking Regulation 28(3) of the A.P. State Electricity Board Service Regulations Part 1, they were deemed to have resigned from service. The said Regulation reads thus: "28(3) Any employee of the Board who remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for continuous period of one year shall be deemed to have resigned from service from the date of absence and shall automatically cease to be in the Board employment." 2. The respondents herein challenged the said orders by filing writ petitions in the High Court. The respondent, Sayeed Ahmed Siddiqui in Civil Appeal No. 6205 of 2001 herein filed Writ Petition No. 282 of 1987 and the respondent, Hameed Jabrey in Civil Appeal No. 6206 of 2001 herein filed Writ Petition No. 11932 of 1988 in the High Court challenging the orders passed by the Board under Regulation 28(3) that they had ceased to be the employees of the Board. The learned Single Judge allowed Writ Petition No. 282 of 1987 holding that the termination of services of the writ petitioner was invalid being violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In that view, while holding that the writ petitioner was entitled for reinstatement in service, in the circumstances of the case, did not award the back wages in full; back wages were denied for the period between 16-12-1980 to 31-8-1989. Liberty also was reserved to the Board to take any disciplinary action in accordance with law. Challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge, the Board filed Writ Appeal No. 1639 of 1989. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal. Writ Petition No. 11932 of 1988 filed by Hameed Jabrey was disposed of by the Division Bench itself stating that the subject-matter of the said writ petition was similar to the one decided in Writ Appeal No. 1639 of 1989 filed by the Board against Sayeed Ahmed Siddiqui. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal. Writ Petition No. 11932 of 1988 filed by Hameed Jabrey was disposed of by the Division Bench itself stating that the subject-matter of the said writ petition was similar to the one decided in Writ Appeal No. 1639 of 1989 filed by the Board against Sayeed Ahmed Siddiqui. In that view, it was held that the writ petitioner Hameed Jabrey was deemed to have been reinstated into service from the date of filing of the writ petition and he was entitled to the back wages from the date of filing of the writ petition with all other consequential benefits. Hence, these two appeals by the Board as stated above. 3. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in both these appeals contended that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court were not right and justified in quashing the orders passed by the Board holding that the respondents had ceased from service on account of their deemed resignation in terms of Regulation 28(3). He further submitted that the High Court was wrong in applying Sections 2(oo) and 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the facts of the cases. In support of his submission, he relied on the decisions of this Court in: (i) Hindustan Paper Corpn. v. Purnendu Chakrobarty, (1996) 11 SCC 404 ; (ii) Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan, (1998) 6 SCC 538 ; and (iii) Scooters India Ltd. v. M. Mohd. Yaqub, (2001) 1 SCC 61 . He submitted that on the basis of the legal position explained in these decisions, once opportunities were given to the respondents under Regulation 28(3), the orders passed by the Board could be sustained. 4. In opposition, Mr. T.M. Mohammad Yousseff, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents in these appeals made submissions supporting the impugned orders. He pointed out that before the Division Bench of the High Court the appellants urged only one ground as to the entitlement of the respondents for back wages: since no other point was urged before the Division Bench, it is not open to the appellants to raise other questions before this Court. 5. He pointed out that before the Division Bench of the High Court the appellants urged only one ground as to the entitlement of the respondents for back wages: since no other point was urged before the Division Bench, it is not open to the appellants to raise other questions before this Court. 5. During the course of the hearing, it is brought to our notice that pursuant to the directions given by the High Court in contempt proceedings, Hameed Jabrey, the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 6206 of 2001 was reinstated on 17-7-1996 and so also Sayeed Ahmed Siddiqui, the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 6205 of 2001 on 5-6-2000. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of these appeals, we felt that ends of justice would be met if the respondents are allowed to continue in service till superannuation without any back wages to be paid. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents also submitted that appropriate orders as regards back wages could be made, but, however, the benefit of continuity of service may be given to the respondents for the purpose of calculating the retrial or terminal benefits. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants submitted that the position of law as stated in the decisions aforementioned in regard to Regulation 28(3) is clear and the appellants are not entitled to any back wages even if the orders terminating the services could be upheld. We do not wish to proceed to consider on the merits of the respective contentions in the view we propose to take. The respondent in CA No. 6206 of 2001, Hameed Jabrey appears to have retired by now and the respondent in CA No. 6205 of 2001, Sayeed Ahmed Siddiqui is left with hardly a few years to retire. These are not the cases where the respondents' services were terminated on account of any misconduct but their services, it is stated, came to an end by operation of second Regulation 28(3). The respondents had given their own explanation for unauthorisedly remaining absent. At this length of time, taking an overall view of the matter, on the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, we pass the following order: The respondents in these appeals shall be allowed to superannuate. We make it clear that the respondents shall not be entitled to any back wages. At this length of time, taking an overall view of the matter, on the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, we pass the following order: The respondents in these appeals shall be allowed to superannuate. We make it clear that the respondents shall not be entitled to any back wages. However, they shall be entitled for continuity of service only for the purpose of calculating the retiral or terminal benefits. 6. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.