Mr. Vidya Sagar and Mr. Amolak, Advocates with v. INDIAN COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ANR

W.P.(C) 6151/2025 Page 1 of 5 $~106 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 6151/2025 & CM APPL. 27969/2025 NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vidya Sagar and Mr. Amolak, Advocates with petitioner in person. versus INDIAN COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for R-1 Ms. Theepa Murugesan, SPC with Mr. Yogesh Dubey, Advocate for R-2. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALANO R D E R% 08.05.20251.Issue notice. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Ms. Theepa Murugesan, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 2.The petitioner retired on 31.01.2016 as Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer of respondent No. 1- Indian Council of Social Science Research [“ICSSR”]. This writ petition is directed against re-computation of his pension on the basis that he was not entitled to Assured Career Progression [“ACP”] benefits during his period of service. The petitioner also assails a communication dated 28.12.2018, which contemplated recovery of Rs. 5,41,689/- against him. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 19:14:26 W.P.(C) 6151/2025 Page 2 of 5 3.The petitioner was granted ACP benefits by an Office Order dated 19.05.2009, with effect from 08.04.2005. He continued to receive the said benefits until his retirement on 31.01.2016, and his pension was also fixed on this basis. 4.Subsequently, on 17.04.2018, a show cause notice was issued to him, in view of audit objections against the grant of ACP benefits to Group A Officers. The ACP benefits granted to him were, therefore, proposed to be withdrawn. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 02.05.2018. 5.The respondents, however, by a communication dated 28.12.2018, sought recovery of the amount of Rs. 5,41,689/- from the petitioner. 6.The petitioner responded to the communication dated 28.12.2018 on 21.01.2019 as follows: “Sir, This has reference to Council's Letter No. F-l/7th CPC 17-18/ICSSR (Pt.II) dated 28.12.2018 received on by me 11th January, 2019 regarding refund of excess payment. 2. I have already made it clear that excess amount, if any shall be remitted by me. Hence there is no objection to refund the excess amount on account of withdrawal of benefit of ACP which was wrongly granted to me by the Council. Before the amount so calculated by the Council is remitted by me, a "Due & Drawn" statement may please be supplied to me to cross-check the amount so arrived. 3. An early action is appreciable. Thanking you.”[Emphasis supplied.] 7.A Due & Drawnstatement was thereafter supplied to him under cover of a letter dated 28.01.2019. 8.A further order was passed on 19.01.2021, in which it was noted This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 19:14:26 W.P.(C) 6151/2025 Page 3 of 5 that the petitioner was not eligible for ACP at the time when it was granted, and that a two-member committee subsequently constituted by ICSSR, had recommended recovery of the amount. It was further noted that, at the time of receiving financial upgradation, an undertaking was given by the petitioner that he would refund any excess payment made on account of incorrect fixation of pay or other discrepancies, either by adjustment against future payment or otherwise. The order, therefore, set out the amounts payable to him and to be recovered by him, andfurther provided that other issues like Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme [“MACP”], and etc., should be considered only after the decision with regard to the audit objection. In the present writ petition, the aforesaid communication dated 19.01.2021 is not under challenge. 9.The issues of withdrawal of the petitioner’s ACP benefits, and recovery of the excess amount paid, stand concluded in terms of his own communication dated 21.01.2019 and the final order dated 19.01.2021, which he has accepted. 10.Mr. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the acceptance, with regard to the withdrawal of the ACP benefits, in anticipation that the petitioner would be granted MACP benefits. In this connection, my attention is drawn to a communication dated 14.03.2024, by which ICSSR, even while reiterating the contention with regard to the petitioner’s involvement in the wrong grant of ACP benefits to several officers, including himself, has further stated as follows: “Further, as informed earlier, as per the instructions/guidelines issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (DOPT), MACP can be granted to the officers on the basis of their This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 19:14:26 W.P.(C) 6151/2025 Page 4 of 5 service record and with particular reference to the APARs for 5 preceding years. Therefore, ICSSR has been-asking your client to provide copies of his self-appraisal which he had submitted to his Reporting officer to enable the ICSSR to take up the matter with the concerned Reporting Officer/Reviewing Officer. It is also intimated that the calculations done in Point No.1 of para 10 of your note are not correct, since as per office records his total qualifying service is 30 years instead of 32 years. Similarly, at point No.5 (Difference of monthly pension arrears on account of commutation of Pension (w.e.f. 01.03:2019 to 08.2019) is not correct. It works out to Rs.12,954/- per month instead of Rs.21,760/- per month. The pending issue of MACP would be considered only after the report of the Committee is submitted and accepted by the competent Authority of the ICSSR and furnish the information as per para above." 11.I am not inclined to accept the petitioner’s submission that the question of withdrawal of ACP benefits and recovery of excess amount paid to him were conditional upon grant of MACP benefits. The petitioner’s communication dated 21.01.2019 and the respondents’ reply dated 28.01.2019do not reflect such a position. 12.The only question that remains, therefore, is whether the petitioner is entitled to MACP benefits, as indicated in the respondent’s communication dated 19.01.2021 and 14.03.2024. On this question, the respondents may take an appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of five months from today. It is expected that the committee constituted by ICSSR for this purpose will furnish its report in time for a decision to be taken within this time frame. 13.Apparently, the amount of Rs. 5,41,689/-, as contemplated by the orders dated 28.12.2018 and 19.01.2021, has not yet been recovered from the petitioner. Mr. Sagar submits that the same may be adjusted against the amount that will be due to him, if the MACP benefits are granted. The aforesaid suggestion is accepted; however, this is subject to the condition This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 19:14:26 W.P.(C) 6151/2025 Page 5 of 5 that the petitioner will file an undertaking before the Court within one week from today to the effect that, if MACP benefits are not granted to him, he will repay the said amounts within three weeks of receipt of the decision to be taken by the ICSSR in terms of this order. 14.The writ petition, alongwith the pending application, is disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, JMAY 8, 2025 SS/JM/