JUDGMENT : Anant S. Dave, J. This appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the appellants/original respondents-Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited and Gujarat Electricity Board challenging the order dated 17.12.2013 passed in Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No. 11646 of 1994 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India came to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the orders of suspension of dismissal and of appeal at Annexures 'D' dated 26.8.1993, 'F' dated 4.9.1993 and 'I' 17.11.1994. 2. In view of certain instructions received by Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned advocate appearing for Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited and Gujarat Electricity Board, it is not necessary for us to record in detail facts of the case but at the same time we would like to reproduce certain extracts of the order under challenge and it reads as under: "2.01. That the petitioner at the relevant time was serving as a Junior Engineer. That a summary departmental enquiry/summary proceedings were initiated against him in terms of clause (8) of the Board's Employees Conduct Disciplinary and Appeal Procedure. That Charge-sheet came to be issued against him under the summary proceedings and he was charged as under :- (1) Leaving Headquarters without prior permission (Clause 1). (2) Indiscipline and undisciplined behaviour (Clause 5). (3) Insubordination and Disobedience of the orders of superior officers (Clause 6/7). (4) Instances of disloyalty to the Board and superior officers under whom you are working (Clause 9/10). (5) Unruly behaviour in the premises of the Board (Clause 5). (6) Insolence, Impudence rude and uncivil behaviour and committing acts subversive of goods behaviour (Clause 31). 2.02. It is required to be noted that as such, the Charge sheet was dated 20/8/1993 and the summary proceedings were held by Chief Engineer on 26/8/1993. Thus, only six days time was granted to the petitioner to defend himself and appear in the summary proceedings. 2.03. That the petitioner appeared before the Chief Engineer (Dist.) on 26/8/1993. 2.02. It is required to be noted that as such, the Charge sheet was dated 20/8/1993 and the summary proceedings were held by Chief Engineer on 26/8/1993. Thus, only six days time was granted to the petitioner to defend himself and appear in the summary proceedings. 2.03. That the petitioner appeared before the Chief Engineer (Dist.) on 26/8/1993. That after hearing the petitioner and relying upon the preliminary investigation report of the AGM (P&IR) and other documents, copies of which were never given to the petitioner, the Chief Engineer (Dist.) has held that all the charges levelled against the petitioner are established and proved and by the impugned order dated 26/8/1993, the Chief Engineer (Dist.), Gujarat Electricity Board has passed an order to dismiss the petitioner from the service of the Board. 2.04. It is required to be noted that as such by the order dated 20/8/1993, the petitioner came to be suspended (order at Annexure-D) and therefore, the petitioner challenged the order at Annexure-D - order of suspension as well as order dated 26/8/1993 - order of dismissal - order at Annexure-F. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of dismissal dated 26/8/1993, the petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the Chairman, Gujarat Electricity Board on 4/9/1993 and by order dated 17/11/1994, the Chairman, Gujarat Electricity Board has rejected the said appeal confirming the order of dismissal (Annexure-I), which is also challenged by the petitioner by way of present petition. Thus, the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 20/8/1993 (Annexure-D), order of dismissal dated 26/8/1993 (Annexure-F) and order passed by the appellate authority (Chairman) dated 17/11/1994 (Annexure-I) rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner.” 3. Upon arguments canvassed by learned advocates for the parties and on careful perusal of Regulation 8 (I) (ii) of Gujarat Electricity Board Employees Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Procedure/Regulation, learned Judge found that order of dismissal was in violation of principle of natural justice and most arbitrary. Even procedure undertaken by invoking clause of summary proceedings was also found to be defective and finally it was held that dismissal order by respondent authority, petitioner herein, was illegal and also mala fide and directed the Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited and Gujarat Electricity Board to reinstate the petitioner employee, respondent herein in service with all consequential benefits as if the petitioner was not dismissed from service by the order of dismissal. Necessary consequences such as reinstatement, back-wages etc. was to follow and to be paid to the petitioner at the earliest. 4. It is not in dispute that petitioner, respondent herein came to be reinstated in service on 16.10.2014, almost after one year of passing the order dated 17.10.2013 by learned Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11646 of 1994. 5. This appeal was argued on merit for some time but having realised subject matter of appeal and nature of challenge vis-a-vis findings and conclusions based on sound reasonings of the order under challenge and upon suggestions of this Court, Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the appellants obtained instructions from the competent authority of the appellants and it is submitted that the respondent-original petitioner is already reinstated vide order dated 16.10.2014 payment of full back-wages ensure huge pecuniary liability, a reasonable and amicable resolution is arrived between the parties and payment to the extent of 60% of back-wages from the date of passing order of dismissal dated 26.8.1993 till order dated 17.10.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11646 of 1994 by learned Single Judge is acceptable and it is submitted that order in terms of above information and understanding be passed as full and final settlement of the dispute by modifying the order impugned in this appeal to the extent as above. 6. Mr. Mahendra R. Anand, learned advocate for the respondent/original petitioner however would submit that upon reinstatement of the petitioner on 16.10.2014 he was given salary to the lowest of minimum pay scale but not on par with permissible salary to the Junior Engineer or of equivalent post. However, the above statement is disputed by Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the appellants who submit that respondent-petitioner is given permissible salary with five increments to which he is entitled so as to bring his salary on par with Junior Engineer. 7. Be that as it may be. The calculation of 60% of back-wages to be made by appellants in accordance with law based on permissible salary revised from to time for the post on which the respondents-petitioner is reinstated. 8. 7. Be that as it may be. The calculation of 60% of back-wages to be made by appellants in accordance with law based on permissible salary revised from to time for the post on which the respondents-petitioner is reinstated. 8. Considering the nature of challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal and what is recorded in earlier paragraphs about an amicable resolution by the parties upon a suggestion made by this Court, we hold that respondent petitioner who is reinstated in service on 16.10.2014 will be entitled to 60% of back-wages from the date of the order of dismissal i.e. dated 26.8.1993 till 17.10.2013 i.e. the date on which learned Single Judge directed appellants/original respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service by setting aside impugned order at Annexures 'D', 'F' and 'I' to the petition. So far as other grievances about promotion of the respondent/original petitioner, it goes without saying that case of the respondent/original petitioner employee be considered for promotion to the next higher post in accordance with existing rule, regulations/executive order of appellants at the time when the respondent/petitioner became eligible and due for promotion by Departmental Promotion Committee. 9. With the aforesaid and partly modifying the impugned order dated 17.12.2013 passed by learned Single Judge to the extent aforesaid, we are inclined to dispose of this Letters Patent Appeal. Order accordingly. Appeal dismissed.