JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 18th September, 2014, passed in CWP No. 2521 of 2012, titled Ramesh Chand Thakur vs. Municipal Corporation, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner (respondent herein) was allowed. The operative portion of the judgment is reproduced herein-below: “Consequently, the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent-corporation is rejected. It is ordered that in case on 31.03.2004 or earlier the petitioner has completed the requisite period of qualifying service, he is held accordingly entitled for regularization subject to availability of a vacancy. Consequential benefits, if any, within the parameters as accruable shall be given to the petitioner within three months.” 2. During the hearing of the case, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner stated that similar writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment, dated 31st July, 2014, passed in CWP No. 2415 of 2012, titled Mathu Ram vs. Municipal Corporation and Others, copy of which has already been placed on the writ record by the respondent/writ petitioner. The said judgment was the subject matter of the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 44 of 2015), which was also dismissed, vide judgment dated 13th October, 2015, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld. It is stated that the appellant-Corporation questioned the judgment of this Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal before the Apex Court by way of Special Leave Petition, which also stands dismissed. Thus, the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Mathu Ram’s case (supra) has attained finality. 3. Viewed thus, there is no illegality in the judgment impugned in the instant appeal and the same is upheld. 4. However, it is made clear that the payment of arrears is restricted for three years prior to filing of the writ petition, following the decisions of the Apex Court in Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, AIR 1998 SC 2819 , Union of India and Others vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 and Asger Ibrahm Amin vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, JT 2015 (9) SC 329. 5. The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.