JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Notice. Mr. Leela Nand Sharma, Advocate appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition, is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the order(s) intended to be passed herein.

3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer(s):-

“(i) That the respondents may be ordered to grant pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2018 in terms of the law laid down in Sunder Singh Vrs. State of H.P. and others.”

4. Case of the petitioner as submitted by learned counsel is that the petitioner was engaged as Daily Waged Beldar/T-Mate in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board w.e.f. 1.1.1982 and his services were regularized on 12.06.1998. The petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2006.

5. A perusal of the facts as narrated in Para 2 of the writ petition reveals that the petitioner has rendered about 16 years of Daily Waged Service and eight years of regular service as aforesaid.

6. In these circumstances, the petitioner is seeking the benefit of pension on the basis of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled as Sunder Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 8.3.2018, Annexure P-2, whereby, it has been mandated that, in case, the actual regular service and the regular service so arrived at on the basis of proportional weightage of one year of regular service for every five years of Daily Waged Service then, once the petitioner has rendered 16 years of Daily Waged Service then, the proportional weightage of Daily Waged Service, as per him comes to three years of regular service.

7. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner completed ten years of qualifying service based on eight years of actual regular service and three years of proportional regular service in view of the Daily Waged Service and, therefore, the petitioner is eligible for pension in terms of the judgment in Sunder Singh’s Case (supra), Annexure P-2, is not in dispute. However, he further submits that the factual aspects with respect to the actual service and proportional service so rendered needs to be verified and since the petitioner has not been approached the respondents, therefore, the matter needs to be looked into.

8. Faced with this situation, Mr. A.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel, on instructions, submits that he shall make a representation to the Respondent No.1- Executive Director (Personnel), Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd, Shimla within two weeks from today; with further directions to the aforesaid respondent to consider/examine the grievance of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in light of the judgment in Sunder Singh, Annexure P-2 (supra) and upon consideration, in case, the petitioner is held entitled to pension then, the actual monetary benefits/arrears shall be confined for a period of three years preceding the filing of this writ petition on (12.12.2023), in terms of the mandate of law, in the case of Union of India versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648; Shiv Dass versus Union of India and Others; (2007) 9 SCC 274; State of Madya Pradesh and Others versus Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538; Asger Ibrahim Amin Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797, followed in Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak versus Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation CA No.4134 of 2022 [2022 SCC online SC 641] decided on 18.5.2022, and arrears beyond three years cannot be claimed/granted. The consequential action be taken by the respondents within three months from today.

9. Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted to the rival contentions and merits of the matter and all Questions of facts and law are left open. In aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.