JUDGMENT : Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has impugned the Communication dated 25th July, 2016 (Annexure-1 to the petition) issued by the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Shipping (IWT Section) whereby it was said that the petitioner did not complete 20 years qualifying service, therefore, his request for voluntary retirement and pensionary benefits were not admissible to him. The petitioner has also impugned the Communication dated 28th April, 2018 issued by the Assistant Secretary (Establishment), Inland Waterways Authority of India (for short “IWAI”), Noida whereby it was communicated that the petitioner would complete 20 years of regular service in June, 2010. Further prayer in the writ petition is that to issue a direction to the respondents to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner after accepting his application for voluntary retirement, treating date of his initial appointment as 22nd April, 1988 or at-least as 9th May, 1988. 2. In anticipation of creation and sanction of posts, including one post of Assistant Public Relations Officer (for short “APRO”) by the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, the petitioner was appointed to the post of APRO on ad hoc basis for a period of one year in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040 on 22nd April, 1988. The said Memorandum was issued by the Assistant Secretary (Personnel), IWAI, Noida. The petitioner was, thereafter, transferred to IWAI, Patna on 3rd May, 1988 and he assumed the charge at his transferred place of posting i.e. Patna on 9th May, 1988. 3. The Government of India, Ministry of Shipping with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) approved creation of 54 posts in IWAI, including one post of APRO in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040 after relaxing the existing ban orders. Para-2 of the Office Memorandum dated 27th February, 1991 (Annexure-4) reads as under:- < “ I am also directed to convey the ex-post-factor approval of the Government to the creation and operation of 35 various posts already being operated by the IWAI as per details in Annexure and for regularization of expenditure incurred thereon. These 35 posts should however, be adjusted against the 54 posts mentioned in para 1 above, as indicated in the Annexure.” 4. Annexure specifically mentions one post of APRO in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 22nd April, 1988. These 35 posts should however, be adjusted against the 54 posts mentioned in para 1 above, as indicated in the Annexure.” 4. Annexure specifically mentions one post of APRO in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 22nd April, 1988. Thus, the post of APRO was sanctioned by the Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport in IWAI with effect from 22nd April, 1988 i.e. the date of initial appointment of the petitioner. On 7th June, 1990, an Office Memorandum was issued for IWAI whereby the petitioner, who was initially appointed on ad hoc basis and continued on the post, was given appointment on temporary basis in the said pay-scale. Later on, vide Office Memorandum dated 25th July, 1994, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of APRO in IWAI with effect from 9th May, 1989, treating his regular appointment to be dated 9th May, 1988. Thereafter, the petitioner vide order dated 21st March, 2001 issued by the IWAI, Noida was promoted to the post of Section Officer in the pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500. 5. On 4th February, 2008, the petitioner sent a representation/notice for voluntary retirement from IWAI to Chairman, IWAI, Noida, stating therein that he would be completing 20 years qualifying service in IWAI on 22nd April, 2008 and for personal reasons he intended to seek voluntary retirement from service of IWAI with effect from 30th April, 2008. Again on 25th February, 2008, the petitioner wrote to the Chairman, IWAI, Noida that as per the Office Memorandum dated 25th July, 1994 the petitioner's date of appointment was 9th May, 1988 and the date of confirmation 9th May, 1989 and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid Office Memorandum he would be completing qualifying service of 20 years in IWAI on 9th May, 2008 and, accordingly, he would become eligible for voluntary retirement from service of IWAI with effect from 9th May, 2008. The petitioner also annexed copy of the Office Memorandum dated 25th July, 1994 and made request to accept his application for voluntary retirement with effect from 9th May, 2008. 6. In response to the petitioner's applications dated 4th February, 2008 and 25th February, 2008 regarding voluntary retirement of the petitioner, the competent authority. Moreover, the Director, IWAI conveyed the petitioner the decision vide letter dated 12th/13th May, 2008 stating therein that he would complete 20 years of regular service in June, 2010. 6. In response to the petitioner's applications dated 4th February, 2008 and 25th February, 2008 regarding voluntary retirement of the petitioner, the competent authority. Moreover, the Director, IWAI conveyed the petitioner the decision vide letter dated 12th/13th May, 2008 stating therein that he would complete 20 years of regular service in June, 2010. His initial appointment on the post of APRO was on ad hoc basis for one year with effect from 22nd April, 1988 and on completion of the ad hoc period of one year the term was extended for further period of one year vide office order dated 21st April, 1989. The petitioner was appointed only on 7th June, 1990 on the post of APRO purely on temporary basis, therefore, his regular service for the purpose of considering benefits would be reckoned only from 7th June, 1990. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner tendered his resignation, which was accepted on 14th November, 2008 by the competent authority. The petitioner, thereafter, vide application dated 14th November, 2008 represented the Secretary to Government of India, the Appellate Authority, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highway, Department of Shipping, requesting the authority to treat his date of appointment as 9th May, 1988 for calculation of qualifying period of 20 years of regular service in IWAI for the purpose of voluntary retirement. 8. Rule-13 of CCS (Pension Rules), which is applicable to the petitioner as well, provides as under:- < “Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. Provided that officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post.” 9. On 5th October, 2010, the appellate authority on appeal of the petitioner (Anneure-17 of the petition) communicated a decision to the Chairperson, IWAI, Noida for reckoning the petitioner's qualifying service of 20 years from 9th May, 1988. It was also said that on 9th May, 1988, the petitioner was appointed on purely ad hoc basis, but it was noticed that the Government had approved creation of 54 posts, including the post of APRO vide Office Memorandum dated 27th February, 1989. It was also said that on 9th May, 1988, the petitioner was appointed on purely ad hoc basis, but it was noticed that the Government had approved creation of 54 posts, including the post of APRO vide Office Memorandum dated 27th February, 1989. It was also said in para-2 of the said letter that creation and operation of 35 various posts, including one post of APRO in IWAI, was also conveyed. The post of APRO, thus, was created and sanctioned with effect from 22nd April, 1988. The petitioner was appointed vide Office Memorandum dated 22nd April, 1988 and subsequently his services were confirmed vide Office Memorandum dated 25th July, 1994 with effect from 9th May, 1989 and his date of appointment was mentioned to be 9th May, 1988. The Appellate Authority, in view of the aforesaid facts, concluded that the petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned post and, therefore, he had completed 20 years of regular service on 8th May, 2008. The regular service of the petitioner was to be counted from 9th May, 1988, the date he joined IWAI, and the word “ad hoc” in his appointment letter could not be taken against him. In view of the aforesaid finding, IWAI was requested to revisit the order dated 28th April, 2008 in the light of Office Memorandum dated 25th July, 1994 and pass appropriate order. However, IWAI vide Communication dated 16th June, 2014 addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of India, reiterated its stand and said that the petitioner was initially appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of APRO and said that the petitioner's service could not be counted with effect from 9th May, 1988 for the purpose of qualifying service of 20 years. 10. Heard Mr. Gautam Saha, learned counsel representing the petitioner, and Mr. Siddharth Khare, learned counsel representing the respondents. 11. The post of APRO was created by the Government of India vide Office Memorandum dated 27th February, 1989 with effect from 22nd April, 1988 when the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis. The petitioner continued on substantive post since the date of his initial appointment on 22nd April, 1988 and thereafter he joined the services in IWAI at Patna, IWAI on 9th May, 1988. The petitioner continued on substantive post since the date of his initial appointment on 22nd April, 1988 and thereafter he joined the services in IWAI at Patna, IWAI on 9th May, 1988. In view of creation and sanction of the post of APRO with effect from 22nd April, 1988, the petitioner's services were confirmed with effect from 9th May, 1989 and his appointment was treated against a substantive post with effect from 9th May, 1988 when he joined the post of APRO at Patna in IWAI. It is, therefore, submitted that considering the aforesaid facts, the Appellate Authority has rightly held that the petitioner has to be treated in regular service with effect from 9th May, 1988 and his 20 years regular service should be counted with effect from 9th May, 1988 and he should be treated to have completed the regular service of 20 years on 8th May, 2008 and he became entitled to take voluntary retirement with effect from 8th May, 2008. 12. However, the IWAI has ignored the decision of the Appellant Authority and has rejected the application of the petitioner for reckoning his regular service with effect from 9th May, 1988 for voluntary retirement with effect from the said date after completing 20 years regular service. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the respondents cannot go back from their own order dated 27th February, 1989 as well as the Appellate Authority decision dated 5th October, 2010. The impugned decision is against the facts and arbitrary and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. The petitioner be treated to have completed 20 years of regular service in IWAI on 8th May, 2008 and he is entitled of voluntary retirement and pensionary benefits as per Rule-13 of CCS (Pension Rules). 13. On the other hand, Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel representing the respondents, submits that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis on 22nd April, 1988. He continued as such and, thereafter, on 7th June, 1990 he was appointed on temporary basis on the post of APRO. His service was got confirmed with effect from 9th May, 1989. He further submits that the petitioner cannot claim counting of his ad hoc service to reckon 20 years of regular service for the purpose of voluntary retirement under Rule-13 of CCS (Pension Rules). The ad hoc service cannot be treated to be regular service. His service was got confirmed with effect from 9th May, 1989. He further submits that the petitioner cannot claim counting of his ad hoc service to reckon 20 years of regular service for the purpose of voluntary retirement under Rule-13 of CCS (Pension Rules). The ad hoc service cannot be treated to be regular service. He further submits that the petitioner has approached this Court after substantial delay and the writ petition has been filed in the 2017 and, therefore, there is gross latches and delay in filing the petition, which is liable to be dismissed as such. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 15. I do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that there is gross latches and delay in filing the present petition inasmuch as final communication to the petitioner was dated 15th July, 2016 (Annexure-1) and the petition has been filed in the year 2017. Further in pension matters, delay is not a ground to deny the relief of pension. The supreme Court in Asger Ibrahim Amin Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797 has held in para-4 as under:- < “4. As regards the issue of delay in matters pertaining to claims of pension, it has already been opined by this Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh that in cases of continuing or successive wrongs, delay and laches or limitation will not thwart the claim so long as the claim, if allowed, does not have any adverse repercussions on the settled third-party rights. This Court held: (SCC p. 651, para 7) 7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. (emphasis supplied) We respectfully concur with these observations which if extrapolated or applied to the factual matrix of the present case would have the effect of restricting the claim for pension, if otherwise sustainable in law, to three years previous to when it was raised in a judicial forum. Such claims recur month to month and would not stand extinguished on the application of the laws of prescription, merely because the legal remedy pertaining to the time barred part of it has become unavailable. This is too well entrenched in our jurisprudence, foreclosing any fresh consideration.” 16. The petitioner was appointed with effect from 22nd April, 1988 on the post of APRO in IWAI in anticipation of creation and sanction of post of APRO. The Government of India, thereafter, vide order dated 27th February, 1989 created and sanctioned the post of APRO with retrospective effect from 22nd April, 1988 i.e. the date of initial appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to report at IWAI, Patna on the same post where he assumed the charge on 9th May, 1988. The Government of India, thereafter, vide order dated 27th February, 1989 created and sanctioned the post of APRO with retrospective effect from 22nd April, 1988 i.e. the date of initial appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to report at IWAI, Patna on the same post where he assumed the charge on 9th May, 1988. Though it was mentioned that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis in anticipation of creation and sanction of post, but the fact remains that the post was created retrospectively by the Government of India with effect from 27th April, 1988 and, thus, it should be treated that the petitioner's appointment was against a substantive vacancy of APRO and he continued since his date of initial appointment on 22nd April, 1988. Thereafter, the petitioner joined his service at Patna on 9th May, 1988 and considering his initial appointment against a substantive post on 9th May, 1988 the petitioner was confirmed on 9th May, 1989 vide order dated 25th July, 1994 by the IWAI itself. These facts have been considered in detail by the Appellate Authority, the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, Department of Shipping and vide order dated 5th October, 2010 (Annexure-17) it was communicated to the Chairperson, IWAI, Noida that the petitioner's service needs to be counted with effect from 9th May, 1988 to reckon 20 years of his regular service for the purpose of voluntary retirement under Rule-13 of CCS (Pension Rules). In view of the aforesaid order dated 25th July, 1994 issued by the IWAI, treating initial appointment of the petitioner against substantive post on 9th May, 1988, date of confirmation 9th May, 1989, the decision of the Appellate Authority dated 5th October, 2010, the IWAI cannot be allowed to negate its own orders and treat the petitioner to be appointed against substantive vacancy only on 7th June, 1990, on the post of APRO purely on temporary basis. The post of APRO was sanctioned and created with effect from 22nd April, 1988 and, thus, the post was existing when the petitioner was appointed on 22nd April, 1988. In view of the aforesaid, the respondents cannot be allowed to go back against their own decision and treat the petitioner to be in regular service only from 7th June, 1990 not from 9th May, 1988. 17. In view of the aforesaid, the respondents cannot be allowed to go back against their own decision and treat the petitioner to be in regular service only from 7th June, 1990 not from 9th May, 1988. 17. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 15th July, 2016 (Annexure-1) and 28th April, 2008 (Annexure-2) are quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in regular service with effect from 9th May, 1988 and treat him to have voluntary retired with effect from 8th May, 2008 and, therefore, give him all consequential reliefs as admissible to him.