* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 13.12.2024 Judgment pronounced on: 18.12.2024 + W.P.(C) 21990/2005 PRANAB KUMAR BHATTACHARYA & ORS ..... Petitioners versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI& ORS .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners : Ms. Rashmi Gogoi, Mr. Tanmaya Mehta and Mr. Yash Gaur, Advocates.

For the Respondents : Mr. Anurag Dayal Mathur, Advocate for R-1.

Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC alongwith Mr. Nishant Sharma and Mr. Nipun Jain, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

J U D G M E N T

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:-

“(a) declare that the petitioners on their retirement would be entitled to the benefits of pensionary scheme under ordinance XX-G statute 20-A, retirement benefit rules.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 21990/2005 Page 1 of 25 (b) issue writ of mandamus or in nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to pay the pensionary benefits under Statute 28-A retirement benefit rules to the petitioners on their retirement (c) issue writ of mandamus or in nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to reimburse all the payment made by the respondent no.1 to the petitioners on account of pensionary benefits on their retirement.

(d) pass any such order(s) or direction (s) as this Hon’ble Court may in the facts and circumstances of the present case deem fit & proper in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondent and (e) Allow the present writ petition with costs.”

2. The facts germane and shorn of unnecessary details as culled out from the petition are enumerated as under:

a) The respondent no.2/Agriculture Economic Research Centre (herein after referred to as “the AERC”) was established in the year 1954 through letter of the then Ministry of Food & Agriculture, Government of India as an independent institution at Delhi School of Economics.

b) Vide Executive Council Resolution No.32 dated 22.04.1960 it was decided by the respondent no.1/Delhi University (hereinafter referred to as “DU”) that the respondent no.2/AERC shall hence forth function as a separate centre under General Administrative Control of the Vice Chancellor, with a Director, who would be its incharge.

c) The petitioner no.1 was appointed as Research Investigator by the respondent no.2/AERC on 07.12.1970; petitioner no.2 was appointed as Research Investigator by the respondent no.2/AERC on 22.09.1972; petitioner no.3 was appointed as Technical Assistant by the respondent Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 21990/2005 Page 2 of 25 no.2/AERC on 19.11.1977; and petitioner no.4 was appointed as Technical Assistant by the respondent no.2/AERC on 07.10.1983.

d) It is the case of the petitioners, that since the inception of the respondent no.2/AERC, the CPF-cum-Gratuity Scheme has been applicable to its staff. The Deputy Director of the respondent no.2/AERC wrote a letter dated 27.08.1974 to the Under Secretary of the respondent no.3/UoI seeking permission of the respondent no.2/AERC for implementation of Statute 28-A (with Appendices A & B) of the respondent no.1/DU pertaining to retirement benefit rules in the respondent no.2/AERC.

e) The petitioners stated that the respondent no.3/UoI vide letter dated 24.11.1975 informed the respondent no.2/AERC that the Government of India has approved the extension of Statute 28-A (with Appendices A & B) of the respondent no.1/DU to the staff of the respondent no.2/AERC on the lines of the Delhi University Rules and to claim from the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, the amount of gratuity due in a particular year in the yearly budget.

f) It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no.2/AERC by letter dated 19.12.1975 addressed to the Assistant Registrar (Pension), University of Delhi informed that the respondent no.3/UoI has approved the exten