JUDGMENT & ORDER : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kr. Chetrii, learned counsel, and Mr. Uttam Deka, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. T. Wangmo, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 4; and Mr. Ajin Apang, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. K.Loya, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 & 3. 2. By way of instituting the present proceeding, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to allow him to proceed on voluntary retirement from service along with pension and pensionary benefits. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner, herein, was initially engaged as a Driver in the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Itanagar, vide order, dated 04.05.2001, in the scale of pay of Rs. 3050-4590/- p.m. plus other allowances as admissible from time to time. The petitioner was directed to draw his pay and allowances against a vacant post of Lower Division Clerk available in the Department. Thereafter, the petitioner was vide order, dated 10.04.2008, transferred against a vacant post of Driver w.e.f. 01.01.2008, with all consequential benefits. In the month of March, 2010; the petitioner was required to undergo a surgery and in view of the complications arising therefrom, he was not in a position to continue as a Driver in the said establishment. Accordingly, the petitioner requested the respondent authorities to accommodate him against any other post. The said request of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent authorities and he was regularized in his service against a post of Peon with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 13.06.2001, vide issuance of an order, dated 21.02.2013. The petitioner, however, in terms of the said order, dated 21.02.2013, was held to be entitled to the financial benefits flowing to him on account of regularization of his service only w.e.f. 28.01.2013. 4. It is further projected in the petition that the health condition of the petitioner not permitting him to continue as a Peon; he, vide his representation, dated 25.07.2022, prayed for releasing him from his service on voluntary retirement basis w.e.f. 31.08.2022. 4. It is further projected in the petition that the health condition of the petitioner not permitting him to continue as a Peon; he, vide his representation, dated 25.07.2022, prayed for releasing him from his service on voluntary retirement basis w.e.f. 31.08.2022. The said representation of the petitioner for proceeding on voluntary retirement from service was considered by the respondent authorities and vide communication, dated 09.05.2023, issued by the Joint Chief Electoral Officer, Itanagar, informed the District Election Officer, Pasighat, that the petitioner having rendered only 9 years 7 months and 3 days of service on regular basis as on 31.08.2022; his representation for proceeding on voluntary retirement from service, cannot be accepted in-as-much as he has not completed the mandatory 20 years of service for the purpose. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding before this Court. 5. Mr. Chetrii, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts as noticed hereinabove, has submitted that the order, dated 21.02.2023, regularizing the service of the petitioner against the post of Peon w.e.f. 13.06.2021, was subsequently modified by the respondent authorities vide issuance of an order, dated 29.05.2017, unilaterally, without any notice to the petitioner and his service was regularized w.e.f. 28.01.2013, prospectively, against the post of Peon. 6. Mr. Chetrii, learned counsel, has further submitted that the health condition of the petitioner not permitting him to continue with his service; the petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 25.07.2022, praying for permitting him to proceed on voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 31.08.2022. The learned counsel has also submitted that the service of the petitioner having already been regularized w.e.f. 13.06.2001; he had the mandated service length of 20 years for the purpose of proceeding on voluntary retirement from service as of 31.08.2022. However, on account of the unilateral action on the part of the respondent authorities in modifying the date of effect of regularization of the service of the petitioner and making the same effective w.e.f. 28.01.2013, vide order, dated 29.05.2017; the petitioner has been prejudicially effected. 7. Mr. However, on account of the unilateral action on the part of the respondent authorities in modifying the date of effect of regularization of the service of the petitioner and making the same effective w.e.f. 28.01.2013, vide order, dated 29.05.2017; the petitioner has been prejudicially effected. 7. Mr. Chetrii, learned counsel, has submitted that the petitioner having submitted his representation for proceeding on voluntary retirement from service solely on the ground of his ill-health and he not having attended his duties thereafter, considering the fact that he had rendered long period of service with the respondent authorities which was also regularized vide order, dated 21.02.2013, with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 13.06.2001, ignoring the subsequent modification of the date of such regularization of the service of the petitioner which has now been made effective w.e.f. 28.01.2013, vide order, dated 29.05.2017; the petitioner be permitted to proceed on voluntary retirement from service along with pension and pensionary benefits. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that, even if the regularization of the petitioner is now deemed to have been effected only w.e.f. 28.01.2013, for the purpose of construing the requisite service for proceeding on voluntary retirement, as well as for computing his pension and pensionary benefits; the past service rendered by him on adhoc basis, be added to the regularized service of the petitioner. 8. In this connection, Mr. Chetrii, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Prem Singh v. State of U.P. & ors ., reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516 ; and Uday Pratap Thakur & anr. v. The State of Bihar & ors ., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 527. 9. Per contra, Ms. Wangmo, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 4; and Mr. Apang, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 & 3, have submitted that although the service of the petitioner vide order, dated 21.02.2013, was so regularized against the post of Peon with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 13.06.2001, and financial benefits on such regularization, was directed to be so authorized w.e.f. 28.01.2013; the said order, in view of the observations made by the Director of Audit & Pension, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, was subsequently modified vide the order, dated 29.05.2017, and the service of the petitioner was regularized prospectively w.e.f. 28.01.2013. The order, dated 29.05.2017, having been so issued in supersession of the earlier order, dated 28.01.2013; it is contended that it is the order, dated 29.05.2017, that would hold the field and accordingly, the representation of the petitioner praying for proceeding on voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 31.08.2022, on being considered by the respondent authorities; it was found that the petitioner had not rendered mandatory 20 years of continuous service for being extended with the said benefit. Accordingly, vide the communication, dated 09.05.2023, issued by the Joint Chief Electoral Officer, Itanagar; the prayer of the petitioner for being granted permission for proceeding on voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 31.08.2022, was rejected. 10. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents have fairly admitted that the petitioner although had remained absent from his duties after 31.08.2022; no proceeding has been instituted against him, in the matter. Accordingly, in the above premises, it has been submitted by the learned counsels for the respondents that the relief as sought for by the petitioner in the present proceeding, may not be considered by this Court and liberty be granted to the respondent authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings with regard to the unauthorized absence of the petitioner from his duties. 11. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 12. It is not disputed that the service of the petitioner was regularized against the post of Peon w.e.f. 13.06.2001, vide order, dated 21.02.2013. However, the said order, dated 21.02.2013, was subsequently modified by the respondent authorities vide issuance of the order, dated 29.05.2017, and the service of the petitioner was now regularized w.e.f. 28.01.2013. The subsequent modification of the order, dated 21.02.2013, vide the order, dated 29.05.2017, is reflected to be one, so done by the respondent authorities unilaterally without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the matter. It is also to be highlighted that the order, dated 29.05.2017, is not under challenge in the present proceeding. 13. The subsequent modification of the order, dated 21.02.2013, vide the order, dated 29.05.2017, is reflected to be one, so done by the respondent authorities unilaterally without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the matter. It is also to be highlighted that the order, dated 29.05.2017, is not under challenge in the present proceeding. 13. Noticing the peculiar facts as arising in the present proceeding and also appreciating that the petitioner on account of the ailment suffered by him, is not in a position to continue with his service and had not been attending his duties after 31.08.2022; this Court is of the considered view that given the length of service rendered by the petitioner in the Department and his present health condition; the petitioner, herein, is required to be held to have retired from his service on voluntary basis w.e.f. 31.08.2022. Admittedly, the petitioner had not completed 20 years of service as on 31.08.2022, to be extended with the requisite permission to proceed on voluntary retirement from service. However, considering the fact that the petitioner was working in the Department and was authorized a regular scale of pay w.e.f. 04.05.2001; this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s adhoc service, to the extent as may be required, be now, construed by the respondent authorities as qualifying service and accordingly, the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner, herein, be so computed. 14. Support in this connection is drawn from a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) and Uday Pratap Thakur (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) had directed that the service rendered in a Work Charge establishment shall be treated as a qualifying service, for the purpose of grant of pension. The said decision was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Uday Pratap Thakur (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had drawn the following conclusions: “ 22. Insofar as the submission on behalf of the appellants that their entire services rendered as work charged should be considered and/or counted for the purpose of pension / quantum of pension is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. If the same is accepted, in that case, it would tantamount to regularizing their services from the initial appointment as work charged. Insofar as the submission on behalf of the appellants that their entire services rendered as work charged should be considered and/or counted for the purpose of pension / quantum of pension is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. If the same is accepted, in that case, it would tantamount to regularizing their services from the initial appointment as work charged. As per the catena of decisions of this Court, there is always a difference and distinction between a regular employee appointed on a substantive post and a work charged employee working under work charged establishment. The work charged employees are not appointed on a substantive post. They are not appointed after due process of selection and as per the recruitment rules. Therefore, the services rendered as work charged cannot be counted for the purpose of pension / quantum of pension. However, at the same time, after rendering of service as work charged for number of years and thereafter when their services have been regularized, they cannot be denied the pension on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service for pension. That is why, the service rendered as work charged is to be counted and/or considered for the purpose of qualifying service for pension, which is provided under Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013. 23. Now, insofar as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is concerned, the reliance placed upon the said decision is absolutely misplaced. In the said case, this Court was considering the validity of Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, under which the entire service rendered as work charged was not to be counted for qualifying service for pension. To that, this Court has observed and held that after rendering service as work charged for number of years in the Government establishment / department, denying them the pension on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service for pension would be unjust, arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, this Court has observed and held that their services rendered as work charged shall be considered/counted for qualifying service. This Court has not observed and held that the entire service rendered as work charged shall be considered/ counted for the quantum of pension / pension. Therefore, this Court has observed and held that their services rendered as work charged shall be considered/counted for qualifying service. This Court has not observed and held that the entire service rendered as work charged shall be considered/ counted for the quantum of pension / pension. The decision of this Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra), therefore, would be restricted to the counting of service rendered as work charged for qualifying service for pension. 24. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeals lack merits and the same deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. It is observed and held that the service rendered as work charged after their services have been regularized under the regularization scheme, namely, the Rules, 2013 and the Circular shall be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for pension only as per Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013.” 15. Accordingly, applying the ratio of the said decision to the peculiar facts arising in the present proceeding; this Court passes the following directions: (i). The petitioner, herein, shall be deemed to have been retired on voluntary retirement basis from his service w.e.f. 31.08.2022. (ii). The respondent authorities would now compute the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner and for the purpose, for determining the qualifying service, shall reckon the service so rendered by the petitioner on adhoc basis w.e.f. 2001. (iii). It is made clear that the entire adhoc service of the petitioner w.e.f. 2001, till the date of his regularization as effected vide the order, dated 29.05.2017, would not be called for being construed as qualifying service. However, the service on adhoc basis, so required to be so construed as qualifying service, would be the minimum service so required for grant of pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner in the matter. (iv). The respondent authorities would now process the case of the petitioner for grant of pension and pensionary benefits by reckoning that he had retired from his service w.e.f. 31.08.2022, on voluntary retirement basis, and accordingly, authorize the same to the petitioner. (v). The exercise as now required to be carried-out in terms of the directions passed by this Court hereinabove, shall be initiated and concluded by the respondent authorities within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 16. (v). The exercise as now required to be carried-out in terms of the directions passed by this Court hereinabove, shall be initiated and concluded by the respondent authorities within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 16. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.