$~104 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 18^th September, 2024 + W.P.(C) 11044/2009 M.P. KANTH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Kumar and Ms. Aparajit Jha, Advocates.

versus INDIAN COUNCIL OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. C.P. Tyagi, Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned order dated 16.02.2009 passed by Respondent No. 1/Indian Council of Historical Research (‘ICHR’) whereby representation of the Petitioner for grant of 2^nd financial upgradation under Assured Career Progression (‘ACP’) Scheme as well as for grant of pensionary benefits with continuity of service from the date of appointment has been rejected.

2. Factual matrix to the extent necessary and relevant and as per the averment in the writ petition is that Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Compiler with the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on 01.04.1971 and worked therein till 20.03.1976. Thereafter, Petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Compiler in ICHR through proper channel Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 11044/2009 Page 1 of 14 and on being selected by a High Power Selection Committee, was offered appointment vide letter 08.04.1976 and on acceptance by 19.04.1976 was required to report for duty by 26.04.1976. The appointment was temporary and for a project “TOWARDS FREEDOM – 1937-47”. On joining ICHR, after his technical resignation with the erstwhile employer, Petitioner’s service record was transferred to ICHR.

3. Petitioner avers that after rendering 30 years service in ICHR and earlier 5 years in Government of India, he was declared quasi-permanent in the post of Assistant Compiler on 27.05.1985 w.e.f. 21.04.1979. Petitioner was promoted as a Compiler w.e.f. 10.06.1985 vide order dated 30.05.1985. ICHR introduced a pension scheme and employees were given an option to opt either for GPF or the existing CPF facility vide order dated 25.07.1986. Petitioner vide letter dated 04.08.1986 opted for GPF and the option was accepted, however, the facility was withdrawn after 5 years whereas similar benefits granted to other non-academic employees of the same project were never withdrawn. Petitioner made a representation on 27.10.1995 for regularisation of his services and grant of pensionary benefits but there was no response.

4. It is stated in the petition that pursuant to recommendation of a DPC convened on 03.06.1999, Petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Research) w.e.f. 04.06.1999 and again made a representation on 17.07.2001 seeking regularisation and 2^nd financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme. Aggrieved by the inaction of ICHR, Petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 6624/2001 and during the pendency of the writ petition, 2^nd ACP was granted to the Petitioner albeit corrigendums were issued thereafter correcting the pay scales granted on financial upgradation. Petitioner avers Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 11044/2009 Page 2 of 14 that although orders were issued for grant of 2^nd ACP, actual benefits were never granted even till his superannuation on 31.03.2006. The writ petition was disposed of on 22.07.2008 directing the Petitioner to make representation ventilating his grievances, with a further direction to ICHR to consider the representation and pass a speaking order. Petitioner made a representation on 08.08.2008, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 16.02.2009 on the ground that being a temporary/ad-hoc employee working in different projects, Petitioner was not entitled to GPF-cum- pension or the financial upgradation under ACP Scheme, Clause 3 whereof makes it clear that certain categories of employees such as casual/temporary/ad-hoc/contract shall not qualify for benefits under the Scheme.

5. Learned counsel for t