ORDER : 1. By way of instant petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: (a) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to order the regularization of the services of the Petitioner as Assistant Analytical Bio-Chemist w.c.f. 24.6.2000 with all consequential benefits including Pensionary and Promotional Benefits and benefits accruable under Assured Career Progression Scheme etc. (b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to directing the Respondents to grant four advance increments to the Petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 24.6.2000 for possessing Ph.D. Degree with all consequential benefits. 2. For having bird’s eye view of the matter, certain undisputed facts, as emerge from the record are that in the year 2000, respondent- University vide advertisement No. 3/2000 (Annexure P-5) advertised inter alia others, posts of Assistant Analytical Chemist (Biochemistry) to be filled on ad hoc basis under ICAR Scheme/project. Perusal of aforesaid advertisement reveals that the post in question was co-terminus with the project/scheme concerned. Petitioner being fully eligible, applied for the post and on his being declared successful in the selection process, he was appointed as Assistant Analytical Chemist (Bio-chemistry) vide appointment letter dated 23.6.2000 (Annexure P-6). Though aforesaid post in the year 2006 was advertised on regular basis alongwith other posts, but the fact remains that the interviews were not conducted qua the post of Assistant Analytical Chemist (Bio-chemistry), as a consequence of which, the petitioner continued to work/render service in the said capacity. Vide communication dated 9.10.2001 (Annexure P-13), respondent- University pursuant to decision of the Board of Management taken vide Item No. 7 of its 100th meeting held on 19.6.2001, deleted the word, “coterminus with the Project” written in the appointment letters issued to the other similarly situate persons, in the year 2000. Vide communication dated 9.10.2001 (Annexure P-13), respondent- University pursuant to decision of the Board of Management taken vide Item No. 7 of its 100th meeting held on 19.6.2001, deleted the word, “coterminus with the Project” written in the appointment letters issued to the other similarly situate persons, in the year 2000. It would be apt to take note of relevant portion of Annexure P-13, which is reproduced as under: “CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur Establishment Section-I No. 5-103/94(Co-terminus)/CSKHPKVV(Estt.)- 81504-39, dated, the 09.-10.2001 office order in pursuance of the decision of the Board of Management taken vide item No. 7 of its 71st meeting held on 29.6.2001, the word “Co-terminus with the Project” inserted in the appointment letters of the following Assistant Professors/equivalent appointed against the advertised posts in different All India Coordinated Research Projects is hereby deleted from their appointment letters from the initial appointment with the condition that on the termination of the concerned Project, they will be adjusted in Plan/Non-loan schemes only if there is no additional financial liability on the budget of the concerned Plan/Non-Plan scheme: - Sr. No. Name and designation Officer/order/letter No. & date vide which initially appointed Name of the project against which appointment made on co-terminus basis. Name of scheme in which actually posted/salary drawn. 11 Dr. Rajeev Rathour, Asstt. Scientist )Plant Pathology) No. 5-103/2000- HPKV(Estt)/101461- 72 dt. 23.12.2000 ICAR-014-112 AICRP on MULLARP ICAR-014-112 at Sangla upto 6.2.2001 and in Biotechnology Centre, Palampur w.e.f. 7.2.2001 in Scheem APL- 007-12 12. Dr. Kalyan K. Mondal (Asstt. Scientist(Plant Pathology) No. 6-687/200- CSKKV(Estt.)/12105- 16 Do ICAR-014-112 at RSS Sangla 13. Dr. Ama Singh Asstt. Scientist (Plant Pathology) No. 5-103/2000- CSKKV(Estt)/15007- 19 Do APL-024-105 at RRS Kukumseri 14. Dr. Suman Kumar Asstt. Scientist (Plant Plathology) No. 5-103/2000- CSKKV(Estt)/17056- 68 dt. 24.2.2001 Do APL-033-114 at RSS Lari 15. Dr. R.K. Develash Asstt. Scientist (Plant Pathology) No. 5-103/2000- CSKKV (Estt)/20705- 18 dt. 8.3.2001 Do APL-029-109 at RSS, Salooni 16. Dr. Surinder K. Sharma Asstt. Entomologist No. 5-103/2000- CSKKV(Estt)/11649- 61 dt. 6.l2.2001 AICRP on White Grubs AICRP on White Grubs at EKRS Nagrota 17. Dr. Pankaj Sood Asstt. 24.2.2001 Do APL-033-114 at RSS Lari 15. Dr. R.K. Develash Asstt. Scientist (Plant Pathology) No. 5-103/2000- CSKKV (Estt)/20705- 18 dt. 8.3.2001 Do APL-029-109 at RSS, Salooni 16. Dr. Surinder K. Sharma Asstt. Entomologist No. 5-103/2000- CSKKV(Estt)/11649- 61 dt. 6.l2.2001 AICRP on White Grubs AICRP on White Grubs at EKRS Nagrota 17. Dr. Pankaj Sood Asstt. Entomologist No. 5-103/000- CSKKV(Estt)/15034- 46 dated 15.2.2001 ICAR-014-112 AICRP on MULLARP ICAR-014-112 at RSS, Sangla With the deletion of the word “Co-terminus with the project” the following additions may also be incorporated in the terms and conditions of the appointment letters/orders of the above incumbents: ii) that they will be entitled to General Provident Fund-cum Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme in accordance with the rules of CSK HPKV, as amended from time to time.” 3. Though, the words, “co-terminus with the project” mentioned in the orders issued to the other persons were deleted but the same were not deleted in case of the petitioner, as such, petitioner made representations (Annexure P-14, P-16, P-17 and A-45) to the worthy Vice- Chancellor of the respondent-University, who having found merit in the claim of the petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons, recommended to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, vide communication dated 9.9.2000 for regularisation of the persons appointed under Project/scheme on co-terminus basis (Annexure P-15). Most importantly, in this communication, worthy Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University specifically informed respondent No.2, that since the technical/ministerial staff in the project is appointed after observing proper selection procedure and in accordance with the R&P Rules, request so made by the teachers, to the Hon'ble Chief Minister seems to be genuine. But the fact remains that no action, if any, ever came to be taken on behalf of the Government on the recommendation made by worthy Vice-Chancellor. 4. It is pertinent to take note here that in the year 2005, respondent-University again advertised the posts of Assistant Analytical Chemist (Bio-chemistry) alongwith other posts to be filled up on regular/ad hoc basis, but the fact remains that no regular appointment was made, as a result of which petitioner continued to work as Assistant Analytical Chemist (Bio-chemistry) on the strength of initial appointment made in the year 2000. It appears that in the year 2009, respondent-University instead of taking steps for filling up post on regular basis, again advertised the post in question to be filled up on ad-hoc basis under ICAR scheme/project. It appears that in the year 2009, respondent-University instead of taking steps for filling up post on regular basis, again advertised the post in question to be filled up on ad-hoc basis under ICAR scheme/project. Petitioner being fully eligible, again came to be appointed against the post in question but on co-terminus basis, as was done in earlier selection process made in the year 2000. 5. Respondent-University has absorbed all the persons except the petitioner, who were given appointment on co-terminus basis under ICAR project/scheme observing the selection procedure and R&P Rules for the post in question. Though the respondent-University kept on repeatedly recommending the matter to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for regularisation of the services of the petitioner, but for one reason or the other, case of the petitioner could not be considered. 6. Reply filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein factual position narrated herein above, has nowhere been disputed, reveals that the steps for absorption of the petitioner could not be taken on account of financial crunch, however, this court finds from the record that some of the persons who were either appointed alongwith the petitioner in the year 2000 on co-terminus basis or were appointed later to the petitioner have been absorbed, as has been taken not here in above. In the aforesaid background, petitioner had no option but to approach this Court for grant of reliefs, as have been reproduced herein above. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record this court finds that there is no dispute inter se parties that the petitioner pursuant to his initial appointment made in the year 2000, has been regularly rendering his service on the post of Assistant Analytical Chemist (Bio-chemistry) on adhoc basis in ICAR project/scheme, till the time he was again subjected to interview in the year 2000 for the post in question, that too on adhoc basis. As has been taken note hereinabove, respondent-University though made repeated attempts to fill up the post in question on regular basis but every time, no one was appointed and petitioner was permitted to continue to work against the post in question on ad-hoc basis. As has been taken note hereinabove, respondent-University though made repeated attempts to fill up the post in question on regular basis but every time, no one was appointed and petitioner was permitted to continue to work against the post in question on ad-hoc basis. Though, respondents in their reply have categorically admitted the factum with regard to petitioner’s having possessed requisite qualification required for the post in question, but yet have not considered his case for regularization at par with other similarly situate persons on account of financial crunch, (paras- 11 to 13 of the reply filed by the respondent-University) 8. Leaving everything aside, it is amply clear from the repeated recommendations made by Worthy Chancellor as well as Registrar of University, Annexures P-15, 16 & Annexure A-45, that the University having taken note of the fact that there are long term projects and the scientists as well as technical/ministerial staff were appointed in these projects after observing proper selection procedure and in terms of R&P Rules, repeatedly requested Government to consider the case of the petitioner and other persons appointed under the ICAR project/scheme for regularization, but yet no decision till date has been taken by the competent authority. 9. Having carefully scanned entire record, this Court finds that it is a classic case of hostile discrimination. Though respondent-University vide order dated 9.10.2001, Annexure P-13, in terms of decision of Board of Management taken in its 71st meeting decided to delete words ‘Coterminus with the Project’ from the appointment orders of the Assistant Professors/equivalent, who were initially appointed on co-terminus basis, as a consequence of which, they all besides becoming eligible for regularization/absorption have also become entitled for GPF- cum – Pension-cum Gratuity Scheme in accordance with the rules of CSK HPKV, as amended from time to time. Perusal of aforesaid communication, which has been otherwise reproduced hereinabove, clearly reveals that persons, who were junior to the petitioner and were appointed on co-terminus basis were subsequently regularized/absorbed, but for no justifiable reasons, case of the petitioner never came to be considered for deletion of words ‘Co-terminus with the Project’ and thereafter for regularization/absorption. Perusal of aforesaid communication, which has been otherwise reproduced hereinabove, clearly reveals that persons, who were junior to the petitioner and were appointed on co-terminus basis were subsequently regularized/absorbed, but for no justifiable reasons, case of the petitioner never came to be considered for deletion of words ‘Co-terminus with the Project’ and thereafter for regularization/absorption. During the proceedings of the case, it transpired that apart from petitioner, some other similarly situate persons had also approached this Court by way of filing petition, claiming therein same reliefs as have been claimed in the instant petition, but since respondent-University granted them reliefs, as were prayed with effect from the year 2016, they all withdrew their cases, Aforesaid fact stands duly substantiated from the contents of communication dated 5.5.2019, sent to the petitioner under the signatures of Deputy Registrar (Establishment)/respondent-University, which was made available to this court, during the proceedings of the case, and the same is taken on record. Perusal of aforesaid communication reveals that pursuant to decision taken by Finance Committee vide item No. 115(10) of its 115th meeting held on 9.2.2018, duly approved by the Board of Management, vide item No. 3.4 of its 113th meeting held on 9.9.2008, the committee constituted vide office order dated 12.3.2018 for the purpose of scrutiny the cases of co-terminus appointees working in the research projects/other Government of India’s project, who have completed ten years service on co-terminus basis under such KVK/Projects, were recommended for absorption/adjustment against the available vacant posts having identical pay scales/pay band in the respondent-University. Since vide aforesaid communication, petitioner was offered to be absorbed /regularized against the post in question with effect from decision 2016/2018, he refused to accept the aforesaid proposal because as per him, he had become entitled for regularisation/absorption from the date persons initially appointed alongwith him were given such benefits. It is not in dispute that two persons namely Pankaj Kumar and Sanjay Chadha, who were also appointed as Assistant Analytical Chemists (Biochemistry) in the year 2000 in terms of advertisement No. 3/2000 (Annexure P-5), as is evident from their appointment letters dated 23.6.2000, which are taken on record, were regularized within six months of their appointment on ad hoc basis, as is evident from order dated 23.12.2000. 10. Mr. Lokender Pal Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent University has not been able to dispute the documents as referred to herein above. 10. Mr. Lokender Pal Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent University has not been able to dispute the documents as referred to herein above. Once the aforesaid documents are not disputed by the respondent-University, it is not understood that how the case of the petitioner could not be considered for absorption/regularisation in December, 2000, as is/was done in the case of other persons, as detailed herein above. Though this court was unable to find any policy, introduced by the respondent-University, for regularization of employees appointed under the Schemes/Projects, but as has been taken note herein above, it clearly emerges from the record that respondent-University on its own whims and fancies adopted a pick and choose method, while ordering regularisation of some of those persons, who were initially given appointment on ad-hoc/co-terminus basis like the petitioner. 11. Though, Mr. Lokender Pal Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent University, made an attempt to carve out a case that before completion of requisite period, case of the petitioner could not be considered for regularisation but yet he was unable to place on record policy/ decision if any prescribing therein minimum period required for regularisation/absorption. Policy decision, if any taken by the respondent- University may not be of any relevance as far as case at hand is concerned, because it is quite apparent from record that two similarly situate persons appointed with the petitioner in the year 2000, on coterminus basis were regularized/ absorbed in December, 2000. 12. At the cost of repetition, it may be taken note that vide communication dated 9.10.2001, Annexure P-13, respondent-University decided to delete the words, “Co-terminus with the Project’ mentioned in the appointment letters of some of the Assistant Analytical Chemists (Biochemistry) but there is no explanation why at that time, case of the petitioner was not considered, especially when it stands duly established on record that the words, ‘co-terminus with the project” from the appointment letters of the persons, who were junior to the petitioner, were ordered to be deleted vide aforesaid communication. In view of the detailed discussion as well as circumstances mentioned above, this court has no hesitation to conclude that the petitioner has been discriminated, as a consequence of which is suffering till date. Reply filed by respondents is totally contrary to the documents available on record. In view of the detailed discussion as well as circumstances mentioned above, this court has no hesitation to conclude that the petitioner has been discriminated, as a consequence of which is suffering till date. Reply filed by respondents is totally contrary to the documents available on record. In reply, respondent-University with the view to justify its action of not regularizing/ absorbing the petitioner, has stated that the petitioner was not appointed after following due process of selection but documents annexed with the petition, especially the communication sent by Registrar to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, clearly reveals that the petitioner was fully qualified to be appointed on the post in question and he possessed minimum qualification as required under R&P Rules for the post in question. 13. Apart from above, it has been further stated that the case of the petitioner could not be considered on account of financial crunch, but aforesaid plea of the University cannot be accepted for the reason that the respondent-University adopted pick and choose method for regularizing/absorbing number of persons, whose initial appointment was on coterminus/ad hoc basis. 14. Leaving everything aside, plea with regard to the petitioner’s not having possessed the requisite qualification or his having not undergone selection process, stands duly rebutted on account of own decision of the respondent-University. pursuant to which, it vide communication dated 5.3.2019, decided to absorb/adjust persons, who were working on coterminus basis against available vacant posts having identical pay scale/pay band in the University, coupled with the fact that pursuant to aforesaid communication, proposal was made to the petitioner for his regularisation/absorption with effect from the year 2016. 15. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein, this court finds merit in the present petition and same is allowed and respondent-University is directed to regularize /absorb the petitioner against the post in question, from the date persons appointed alongwith him on coterminous /ad hoc basis in the year 2000, were ordered to be regularized/absorbed, alongwith all consequential benefits. 16. Since the petitioner is waiting for his rightful claim for years together, this court hopes and trusts that the respondent-University would take necessary steps in this regard, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks. 16. Since the petitioner is waiting for his rightful claim for years together, this court hopes and trusts that the respondent-University would take necessary steps in this regard, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks. However, it is clarified that the petitioner though would be entitled for regularization/absorption from the date his two colleagues namely Pankaj Kumar and Sanjay Chadha as well as his juniors/counter parts were regularized/absorbed, but the financial benefits qua the same would be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing the petition. 17. The petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications.