W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 1 of 49

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 10.02.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 10.03.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 10.03.2026

+ W.P.(C) 1265/2018 & CM APPL. 9919/2025

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Petitioners

Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC

GNCTD-Services, Mr. Nitesh

Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam

and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat,

Advs.

versus

DR. YOGINDER GUPTA AND ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr.

Anshuman Mehrotra, Mr. Arjun

Panwar, Mr. Amrit Koul, Ms.

Muskaan Dutta and Mr. Prahil

Sharma, Advs. for R-1.

Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Adv.

for R-2.

Mr. Ujjal Banerjee, Mr. Rohan

J. Alva, Mr. Anmol Sehgal, Mr.

Anant Sanghi, Advs. for R-3 to

23.

Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv.

with Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Mr.

Nishant Kumar, Mr. Harshajay

Singh, Mr. Siddhant Narayan

and Ms. Pooja Rathore, Advs.

for impleaded Respondents –

Dr. R.N. Das, Dr. Anupma

Singh and Dr. Dinesh Chawla.

Ms. Meghna De and Ms. L..

Gangmei, Advs. for applicant in

CM APPL.9919/2025.

+ W.P.(C) 5221/2018

DR. P.S. SARANGI & ORS .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Varun Singh, Ms. Deepieka

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 2 of 49

Kalia, Ms. Bhumi Sharma and

Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Advs.

Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Sr. Adv.

with Mr. Ujjal Banerjee, Mr.

Rohan J. Alva, Mr. Anmol

Sehgal, Mr. Anant Sanghi, Mr.

Ritwik Saha, Advs.

versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Respondents

Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC

GNCTD-Services, Mr. Nitesh

Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam

and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat,

Advs.

Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Adv.

for R-2.

Mr. Shanker Raju and Mr.

Nilansh Gaur, Advs. for R-4 to

R-11

+ W.P.(C) 10928/2019 & CM APPL. 55140/2019

DR. KUMUD BHARTI .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar and Mr.

Parkash Chander, Advs.

versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC

GNCTD-Services, Mr. Nitesh

Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam

and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat,

Advs. for R-1.

Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Adv.

for R-2.

+ W.P.(C) 167/2019

DR. MAHESH CHAUHAN .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Adv.

versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 3 of 49

Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC

GNCTD-Services, Mr. Nitesh

Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam

and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat,

Advs.

Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Adv.

for R-2.

+ W.P.(C) 4929/2019, CM APPL. 21908/2019, CM APPL.

21909/2019 & CM APPL. 65124/2025

DR. RADHA DUBEY .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv,

Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha, Mr.

Rakesh Mishra, Ms. Asmita,

Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Advs.

versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC

GNCTD-Services, Mr. Nitesh

Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam

and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat,

Advs.

Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Adv.

for R-2.

+ W.P.(C) 7531/2022, CM APPL. 23035/2022, CM APPL.

23036/2022, CM APPL. 23037/2022, CM APPL. 23038/2022

& CM APPL. 6628/2025

DR REETA MONGIA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Varun Singh, Mr. Shikher

Upadhyay and Ms. Bhumi

Sharma, Advs.

Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Adv.

with Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. for

Petitioner No.3.

versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC

GNCTD-Services, Mr. Nitesh

Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 4 of 49

and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat,

Advs. for R-1.

Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Adv.

for R-2.

+ W.P.(C) 835/2020

DR. MEERA SAINI AND ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Ujjal Banerjee and Mr.

Anmol Sehgal, Advs.

versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC

GNCTD-Services, Mr. Nitesh Kumar

Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.

Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.

1. The present Writ Petitions seek to set aside the Orders dated

23.05.2017, 25.07.2019, 20.08.2018, 19.02.2019, 23.12.2021 and

23.09.2019 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Orders‟] passed by

the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New

Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟], in various Original

Applications („OAs‟). Since the issues are common, with the consent

of learned Counsel representing the parties, all these Writ Petitions are

disposed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the expression “Applicants” shall

hereinafter be used as a compendious reference to Respondent No.1 in

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 5 of 49

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 as well as to the Petitioners in the connected Writ

Petitions, unless the context otherwise requires.

3. By the Impugned Order dated 23.05.2017, passed in O.A.

Nos.604/2014 and 238/2015, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the

concerned Applicants for the grant of seniority by counting their

contractual service, while directing that such period be considered

only for the limited purpose of qualifying service towards pension, in

accordance with the applicable rules. Further, vide the Impugned

Order dated 23.12.2021 passed in O.A. No.3556/2018, the Tribunal

directed to consider the period spent on contractual service for the

purpose of qualifying service towards pension, however, it said that

the same shall be subject to the decision of this Court in the Writ

Petition filed assailing the decision of the Tribunal in O.A.

No.604/2018, i.e., W.P.(C) 1265/2018.

4. By the Impugned Orders dated 25.07.2019 and 23.09.2019,

passed in the O.A. Nos.4442/2014 and 2837/2019, respectively, the

Tribunal, while consistently rejecting the claim for grant of seniority

by counting contractual service, granted limited relief of counting

such service towards qualifying service for pension, however, in the

Impugned Orders dated 20.08.2018 and 19.02.2019 in O.A.

Nos.1246/2017 and 4018/2016, respectively, even the benefit of

counting such service for pension was declined.

5. Therefore, the issue that arises for consideration before this

Court is whether the period of contractual service rendered by the

Applicants, prior to their regular appointment in accordance with the

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 6 of 49

Recruitment Rules, is liable to be counted for the purpose of seniority;

and, if not, whether such period is required to be reckoned at least

towards qualifying service for pension under the applicable service

rules.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

6. In order to appreciate the controversy in its proper perspective,

it is necessary to notice the relevant facts, as emerging from the

respective OAs and the Impugned Orders passed therein.

7. With the coming into force of the constitutional framework

under Article 239AA of the Constitution of India, the Government of

National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) was constituted in the

year 1992. Consequent thereto, a number of hospitals, dispensaries

and health centres were established under its administrative control,

and certain existing medical institutions were also placed under

GNCTD for the purpose of providing healthcare services to the

residents of Delhi.

8. At the relevant time, there was no independent cadre of doctors

under the GNCTD. The medical requirements of the institutions

functioning under GNCTD were met either by drawing doctors from

the Central Health Services („CHS‟) on deputation/placement, or by

engaging doctors on contractual basis.

9. The Applicants in the present batch of matters were initially

engaged by the Health and Family Welfare Department of GNCTD

[hereinafter referred to as „the Health Department‟] on an contractual

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 7 of 49

basis on various dates against sanctioned posts. The engagements

were made for fixed tenures, which were extended from time to time.

A consolidated chart, indicating the relevant years/dates of (i.) initial

contractual engagement, (ii.) regular appointment, and (iii.)

discontinuation (where applicable), is set out herein below for ready

reference:

W.P.(C)

No.

O.A. No. Year of

initial

Contractual

engagement

Date of

Regular

appointme

nt

Period of

Discontinua

tion of

service (if

any)

1265/2018 604/2014 1999 23.12.2009 - 5221/2018 238/2015 1996-2006 23.12.2009 - 10928/2019 4442/2014 2002 23.12.2009 - 167/2019 1246/2017 2000 23.12.2009 - 4929/2019 4018/2016 1996 03.11.2010 23.11.2007 - 02.11.2010

7531/2022 3556/2018 1996 23.12.2009 - 835/2020 2837/2019 1999-2006 23.12.2009 - 10. It was the case of the Applicants in the OAs that the

engagement of doctors on contractual basis was preceded by an

assessment process and such assessment was at a level equivalent to

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 8 of 49

that adopted for appointment to the regular CHS cadre, and the duties

discharged by them during the contractual period were identical to

those performed by regularly appointed doctors. However, it is not in

dispute that at the stage of such initial engagement, the appointments

were not made through the regular selection process contemplated

under the applicable Recruitment Rules.

11. In the year 1997, certain contractual doctors engaged under

GNCTD filed O.A. Nos.2564/1997, 2984/1997 and connected matters

before the Tribunal, claiming parity in pay scale and service benefits

with regularly appointed Junior Medical Officers (JMOs) under CHS,

contending that despite selection through public advertisement and

discharge of identical duties, they were paid only a consolidated

remuneration of Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal allowed the OAs

and directed that the contractual doctors be granted the same pay

scale, allowances and service benefits, including leave and

increments, as admissible to regularly appointed JMOs, deemed their

service to be continuous notwithstanding minor contractual breaks,

and further directed consideration of age relaxation to the extent of

contractual service rendered, if they appeared before UPSC for regular

appointment.

12. In the year 2006, the GNCTD took a policy decision to

constitute its own independent health cadre. Vide Cabinet Decision

No.1139 dated 13.11.2006, it was resolved to form a new service

titled “Delhi Health Services” („DHS‟) for managing health delivery

in the GNCTD. At the official level, it was agreed that the initial

constitution of the new cadre would comprise:

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 9 of 49

i. Members of the CHS who opted to join the proposed

DHS cadre; and

ii. Individuals appointed by the GNCTD on a contractual

basis against ex-cadre posts from the year 1995-1996 onwards, as

per the advice of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

13. It was further agreed that, for future management of the new

service, the Ministry would not fill vacant posts of General Duty

Medical Officers („GDMOs‟) and Non-Teaching Specialists (NTSs)

under CHS, and such vacant posts would instead be transferred to the

proposed DHS cadre.

14. The aforesaid policy proposal was thereafter approved by the

GNCTD Cabinet and consequential steps were initiated for

operationalising the new cadre. In consultation with the Ministry of

Health and Family Welfare, it was decided that, at the first instance,

the GDMOS and NTSs cadres would be constituted, with the Public

Health and Teaching cadres to be added at a later stage.

15. Pursuant thereto, and in consultation with the Union Public

Service Commission („UPSC‟), the Delhi Health Services (Allopathy)

Rules, 2009 [hereinafter referred to as „the 2009 DHS Rules‟] were

notified w.e.f. 23.12.2009.

16. The 2009 DHS Rules specifically provided for the initial

constitution of the service. Rule 6 of the 2009 DHS Rules [hereinafter

referred to as „Rule 6‟] assumes significance in the context of the

dispute in the present case. It provides for the initial constitution of the

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 10 of 49

service by deeming officers appointed under the CHS Rules, 1996 and

serving in the GNCTD, upon exercising option, as members of the

service in their respective grades, and further by regularising

contractual appointees appointed on or before 18.12.2006, subject to

assessment of suitability and fulfillment of prescribed qualifications,

at the entry level of the concerned sub-cadre.

17. Upon the coming into force of the 2009 DHS Rules, and with a

view to effecting the initial constitution of the DHS by including

eligible contractual doctors, the UPSC undertook an assessment of

suitability in terms of Rule 6(2). Assessment Boards were constituted,

and between 27.03.2012 and 04.04.2012, the suitability of 532

doctors, comprising 320 GDMOs and 212 NTSs, was evaluated.

18. All the Applicants in the present batch of matters were found

suitable in the said assessment process, and their names were

recommended for inclusion in the respective sub-cadres by the UPSC.

Consequent upon the recommendations of the UPSC, the GNCTD

issued orders dated 15.05.2012 appointing the said doctors to their

respective sub-cadres under the DHS with immediate effect.

19. Thereafter, vide letter dated 30.04.2013, the GNCTD informed

the UPSC that the doctors inducted into the DHS pursuant to the

suitability assessment had represented that their date of induction

should not be later than 23.12.2009, i.e., the date of notification of the

2009 DHS Rules. Upon consultation with the Law Department, the

Health Department recommended the grant of ab initio regular status

w.e.f. 23.12.2009. The UPSC concurred with this proposal and, vide

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 11 of 49

letter dated 16.01.2014, approved adoption of 23.12.2009 as the date

of induction under Rules 5(2) and 6(2) of the 2009 DHS Rules.

Consequent thereto, a Notification dated 20.08.2014 was issued.

20. Vide the aforesaid Notification dated 20.08.2014, the names of

528 Medical Officers were notified as having been inducted into the

DHS at the stage of initial constitution of the service w.e.f.

23.12.2009.

21. Further, the Health Department initiated steps for finalisation of

the seniority of GDMOs and NTSs Cadre under the 2009 DHS Rules.

In this regard, revised tentative seniority lists for the aforesaid two

cadres were published on 08.03.2018 and 13.03.2018, respectively.

22. At this stage, it is necessary to advert to the peculiar facts of

W.P.(C) 4929/2019 arising out of O.A. No.4018/2016. As noticed in

the Impugned Order, the Petitioner therein had proceeded on leave for

20 days from 03.04.2006 to 22.04.2006 and did not rejoin within the

stipulated period. Consequently, her contractual services were

terminated vide order dated 23.11.2007 [hereinafter referred to as

„Termination Order‟]. The challenge to the termination before the

Tribunal, and thereafter before this Court, did not succeed. However,

in SLP No.23809/2010, the Supreme Court, vide interim order dated

16.08.2010, directed that the Petitioner be taken back into service. In

compliance thereof, she was reinstated on 03.11.2010. The SLP was

ultimately disposed of on 19.08.2015 with a direction that the

Petitioner be treated as eligible to be considered for regularization by

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 12 of 49

the UPSC. Significantly, the Termination Order was not set

aside/touched upon by the Supreme Court.

23. The Petitioner thereafter claimed entitlement to the pay scale

and other service benefits at par with the recruits of the year 1996. The

said claim was rejected by the Department vide order dated

16.11.2015, which led to the filing of O.A. No.4018/2016. The

Tribunal, upon consideration, dismissed the said O.A.

24. Further, insofar as pensionary benefits and applicability of the

old pension scheme were concerned, the Health Department, vide

order dated 18.07.2017, rejected the claim by holding that grant of the

old pension scheme would be contrary to Rules 14(c) and 9(4) of the

2009 DHS Rules.

25. Meanwhile, aggrieved by the fixation of 23.12.2009 as the date

of induction for all purposes, the Applicants approached the Tribunal

by filing separate OAs. The principal grievance raised was that they

had rendered long years of service on a contractual basis prior to

23.12.2009. Though their initial engagements were for limited

periods, the same were extended from time to time and, according to

them, without any substantive break in service.

26. It was contended before the Tribunal that from the date of their

initial appointment on a contractual basis, the Applicants had been

discharging duties identical to those performed by regularly appointed

doctors under CHS and, thereafter, under the DHS. Emphasis was laid

on the fact that their initial appointments were made pursuant to

public advertisement and after assessment by duly constituted Boards

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 13 of 49

of GNCTD. On that premise, it was urged that their initial entry was

not dehors the 2009 DHS Rules and that the entire length of service

rendered on an contract basis ought to be taken into account for the

purpose of seniority.

27. The Applicants accordingly sought a direction that their

seniority be reckoned from the date of their initial contractual

engagement and that they be accorded regular status from that date

with all consequential benefits. In addition to seniority, a claim was

also raised in certain matters that the period of contractual service be

counted towards qualifying service for pension, on the ground that

such service was continuous in nature and rendered against sanctioned

posts.

28. In essence, the challenge before the Tribunal was to the

Notification dated 20.08.2014, to the extent it confined the benefit of

induction and seniority to 23.12.2009. The Applicants sought

recognition of their pre-2009 contractual service both for purposes of

inter se seniority and, in the alternative or additionally, for reckoning

qualifying service under the applicable pension rules.

29. A brief chart indicating (i) the findings/remarks recorded in the

respective Impugned Orders, and (ii) the reliefs now prayed for before

this Court in the present Writ Petitions, has been prepared for ready

reference:

W.P.

(C)

No.

O.A.

No.

Remarks in the

Impugned Order

Relief sought before

this Court

1265/604/ i. Seniority from the date Setting aside the

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 14 of 49

2018 2014 of initial contractual

appointment declined;

ii. Contractual service

directed to be counted

only towards qualifying

service for pension,

subject to rules.

Impugned Order dated

23.05.2017, thereby

granting seniority from

date of initial contractual

engagement; and

counting of the entire

pre-2009 service for all

consequential benefits,

including pension.

5221/

2018

238/

2015

Same view as in O.A.

604/2014.

i. Setting aside the

Impugned Order dated

23.05.2017 to the extent

that the Tribunal rejected

the claim of the

Petitioners for grant of

seniority.

ii. Quashing the

Notification dated

20.08.2014.

10928

/2019

4442/

2014

i. Seniority claim rejected;

ii. Contractual service

permitted to be counted

towards qualifying service

for pension.

i. Setting aside the

Impugned Order dated

25.07.2019.

ii. Quashing/Modifying

the Notification dated

20.08.2014.

iii. Setting aside or

modifying the Rule 9(4)

of the 2009 DHS Rules.

167/

2019

1246/

2017

i. Benefit of counting

contractual service for

pension refused in view of

ineligibility under

applicable pension rules.

i. Setting aside the

Impugned Order dated

20.08.2018, thereby

granting seniority from

initial engagement and

direction to count

contractual service also

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 15 of 49

for pensionary benefits.

ii. Quashing the Rule

14(2)(c) of the 2009

DHS Rules.

4929/

2019

4018/

2016

i. In view of the

termination dated

23.11.2007 and break in

service, continuity not

accepted and also parity in

pay and seniority rejected.

ii. Pension claim also

declined in light of Rules

14(c) and 9(4) of the 2009

DHS Rules.

i. Quashing the

Impugned Order dated

19.02.2019, thereby

recognising the entire

service, including the

period prior to

termination for seniority.

ii. Granting of parity in

pay and pension under

the old pension scheme.

7531/

2022

3556/

2018

i. Contractual service

directed to be considered,

however, relief is made

subject to the outcome of

W.P.(C) 1265/2018.

i. Setting aside the

Impugned Order dated

23.12.2021, thereby

granting unconditional

counting of contractual

service for seniority and

pension without being

made subject to other

Writ Petitions.

ii. Quashing the Rules

6(2), 9(4) and 14(2)(c) of

the 2009 DHS Rules.

835/

2020

2837/

2019

i. Seniority from initial

contractual appointment

declined.

ii. Contractual service

directed to be counted for

pension in accordance

with rules.

i. Quashing the

Impugned Order dated

23.09.2019.

ii. Quashing the Rules

6(2), 9(4), 14(2)(b),

14(2)(c).

iii. Quashing the revised

tentative seniority list

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 16 of 49

dated 08.03.2018 and

13.03.2018.

30. Thus, across the Impugned Orders, the Tribunal‟s analysis

proceeded primarily on the following factual premises:

i. The initial engagement of the Applicants was not through

the regular recruitment process prescribed under the Recruitment

Rules;

ii. Regular appointment was made only after due selection;

iii. Seniority is ordinarily reckoned from the date of regular

appointment unless statutory rules provide otherwise; and

iv. Counting of past service for pension is governed by

specific statutory provisions, distinct from principles governing

seniority.

31. It is in the aforesaid factual and legal backdrop that the present

batch of Writ Petitions has been preferred, assailing the findings of the

Tribunal to the extent adverse to the respective Petitioners.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE GNCTD :

32. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and, with their

able assistance, perused the paperbook.

33. The submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the

GNCTD, common to the present batch of matters, are as under:

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 17 of 49

i. The Applicants were initially engaged purely on

contractual basis for fixed tenures to meet administrative

exigencies. Such engagements were not made through the regular

recruitment process prescribed under the applicable Recruitment

Rules and did not confer any right to regular appointment or to

seniority. The mere fact that such engagements were preceded by

an advertisement or assessment does not elevate them to

appointments made in accordance with the statutory recruitment

rules.

ii. The 2009 DHS Rules constitute a complete code in

respect of constitution of the cadre, induction and fixation of

seniority. Under Rule 6(2), contractual doctors appointed on or

before 18.12.2006 could be considered for induction only upon

assessment of suitability by the UPSC and upon being found fit.

It is only upon such induction that they became members of the

service. Therefore, seniority could not, in law, be reckoned from

a date prior to their deemed appointment under the 2009 DHS

Rules.

iii. The adoption of 23.12.2009, i.e., the date of notification

of the 2009 DHS Rules, as the date of induction for the purpose

of seniority was not arbitrary, but was done after due consultation

with the Law Department and with concurrence of the UPSC.

The Notification dated 20.08.2014 merely gave effect to this

considered decision and ensured uniformity at the stage of initial

constitution.

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 18 of 49

iv. Seniority is a statutory right and must flow strictly from

the rules. In the absence of any provision in the 2009 DHS Rules

permitting retrospective seniority from the date of contractual

engagement, no such benefit can be granted. Contractual service,

by its very nature, does not create a lien on a post nor form part

of cadre service unless specifically provided.

v. The entitlement to count past service for pension is

governed by specific statutory provisions. In certain matters, the

Tribunal granted limited relief of counting contractual service

towards qualifying service, subject to fulfillment of the

applicable rules. However, in O.A. Nos.1246/2017 and

4018/2016, such relief was rightly declined as the Applicants did

not satisfy the statutory conditions or were governed by the New

Pension Scheme. Reliance is placed on Rules 14(c) and 9(4) of

the 2009 DHS Rules to submit that grant of the old pension

scheme would be contrary to the said Rules.

vi. Insofar as W.P.(C) 4929/2019 is concerned, it is

submitted that the Petitioner therein suffered termination of

service on 23.11.2007 on account of unauthorized absence.

Though she was taken back into service pursuant to interim

orders of the Supreme Court, the Termination Order was never

set aside. There was thus a clear break in service, rendering her

claim of continuity for seniority or pension untenable.

vii. The Tribunal has correctly held that seniority cannot be

granted from the date of initial contractual appointment, and

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 19 of 49

counting of such service for pension, if permissible, must strictly

conform to the governing rules. The present Writ Petitions,

according to the GNCTD, seek a benefit which is neither

contemplated under the 2009 DHS Rules nor supported by

settled principles governing service jurisprudence.

34. No other submissions have been advanced by the learned

Counsel for the GNCTD.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS IN

W.P.(C) 1265/2018:

35. The submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the

Respondents in the W.P.(C) 1265/2018, as urged before this Court,

are summarised hereunder:

i. Pension is not a bounty but a valuable right earned for

past service and constitutes a measure of social security post-

retirement. Any interpretation of the Rules which arbitrarily

denies pensionary benefit, despite long and continuous service

rendered against sanctioned posts, would defeat the object of the

pension scheme.

ii. Reliance is placed on S.D. Jayaprakash & Ors. v. Union

of India

1

; State of H.P. v. Sheela Devi

2

; and Uday Pratap

Thakur v. State of Bihar

3

, to contend that service rendered on

contractual or work-charged basis prior to regularization is liable

to be counted towards qualifying service for pension, where the

1

2025 SCC OnLine SC 973

2

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272

3

2023 SCC OnLine SC 527

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 20 of 49

rules so permit. It is further urged that the CCS (Pension) Rules,

1972 [hereinafter referred to as „CCSP Rules‟] must be construed

purposively and any restrictive interpretation defeating legitimate

pensionary benefits ought to be eschewed.

iii. Placing reliance on decisions of various High Courts in

Indian Institute of Technology v. Dr. Praveen Kumar

4

; Vasant

Gangaram v. State of Maharashtra

5

; and Harbans Lal v. State

of Punjab

6

, it is submitted that where the initial engagement was

pursuant to a valid advertisement and the service continued

without break, the employee cannot be deprived of pensionary

benefits merely because regularization was granted from a later

date.

36. No other submissions have been advanced by the learned

Counsel for the Respondents in the aforesaid Writ Petition.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS IN

W.P.(C) 5221/2018:

37. The submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the

Petitioners in the W.P.(C) 5221/2018 are summarised hereunder:

i. The initial appointments of the Petitioners on contractual

basis were made against sanctioned posts after due advertisement

and selection, in a manner known to law. In the absence of any

specific rule to the contrary, continuous length of service must

ordinarily be taken into account for determining seniority,

4

2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3350

5

(1996) 10 SCC 148

6

2010 SCC OnLine P&H 8181

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 21 of 49

consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Reliance is placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in

State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava

7

; and A Janardhana

v. Union of India & Ors.

8

ii. Placing reliance on the decision in Vijay Dhankar & Ors.

v. GNCTD & Ors.

9

, it is urged that Rule 6(2) of the 2009 DHS

Rules recognises the validity of prior contractual appointments at

the stage of initial constitution, and therefore the Petitioners‟ past

service deserves due weightage.

iii. Insofar as pension is concerned, the employees who had

been working continuously prior to 01.01.2004, though

regularised subsequently, are entitled to have their qualifying

service counted from the initial date of appointment. Reliance is

placed on Harbans Lal (supra); Sheela Devi (supra) and S.D.

Jayaprakash (supra) to submit that past contractual service,

when followed by regularisation, must be counted towards

pensionary benefits.

38. No other submissions have been made on behalf of the learned

Counsel representing the Petitioners in the aforesaid Writ Petition.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS IN W.P.(C) 1265/2018 AND

5221/2018:

7

1958 SCR 533

8

(1983) 3 SCC 601

9

2012 SCC OnLine CAT 4728

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 22 of 49

39. This Court has considered the rival submissions advanced on

behalf of the GNCTD as w ell as the respective

Respondents/Petitioners in W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and W.P.(C)

5221/2018. Since both matters arise out of the common Impugned

Order dated 23.05.2017, passed in O.A. Nos.604/2014 and 238/2015

and involve overlapping issues of seniority and pension, they are

being examined together.

A. Whether contractual service is liable to be counted for seniority

in the case of the present fact.

40. The principal submission of the GNCTD is that the Applicants

were initially engaged purely on contractual basis and not through the

regular recruitment process contemplated under the applicable

Recruitment Rules. It is urged that the 2009 DHS Rules constitute a

complete code and that, in the absence of any express provision

granting retrospective seniority, no such benefit can be claimed.

41. On the other hand, the Applicants contend that their

appointments were made against sanctioned posts after due

advertisement and assessment, they discharged duties identical to

regularly appointed Doctors and their induction under Rule 6(2) of the

2009 DHS Rules is itself a recognition of the validity and continuity

of their prior service.

42. At the very outset, it is pertinent to refer to some of the relevant

rules of the 2009 DHS Rule. The same are extracted as under:

“2. Definitions.-

In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires-

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 23 of 49

(a) “Commission” means the Union Public Service

Commission.

(b) “Controlling Authority” means the Health and Family

Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi.

(c) “Duty Post” means any post, whether permanent or

temporary, specified in Schedule-II.

(h) “Service” means the Delhi Health Service (Allopathy).

(i) “Sub Cadre” means any of the two streams of the Service,

namely General Duty, and Non teaching Specialist as the case

may be.

***

5. Members of the Service.-

(1) The following persons shall be members of the Service,

namely:-

(a) Persons appointed under sub-rule (5) of rule 4.

(b) Persons appointed to duty posts under rule 6, and

(c) Persons appointed to duty posts under rule 7.

(2) A person, appointed under clause (b) of the Sub-rule (1) shall,

on such appointment, be deemed to be the member of the Service in

the appropriate Grade applicable to him in Schedule-II.

(3) A person appointed under clause (c) of the Sub (1) shall be the

Member of the Service in the appropriate grade applicable to him

in Schedule-II from the date of such appointment.

***

6. Initial Constitution of the Service.-

(1) All the officers appointed under the Central Health Service

Rules, 1996, who are working in the Government of NCT of Delhi

as on the date of publication of these rules in the official gazette

and who opt to be part of this service shall be deemed to have been

appointed under these rules and they shall be members of the

service in the respective grades.

(2) All officers appointed on contract basis/ad-hoc basis on or

before 18

th

December 2006, i.e., the date of issue of the

Government of Delhi‟s O.M. No.

F.70/49/2006/H&FW/SSHFW/463-475 dated 18th December,

2006, on the basis of their suitability as assessed by the

Commission and requisite educational qualifications and

experience prescribed for the post and being found fit, shall be

deemed to have been appointed under these Rules and assigned to

the Sub- Cadre of General Duty Medical Officers or Non-teaching

Specialists, as the case may be, and they shall be members of the

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 24 of 49

Service at the entry level of the respective Sub-Cadre at the initial

constitution stage.

***

9. Seniority.-

(1) The relative seniority of members of the service appointed to a

grade in the respective sub-cadres or in the respective specialty of

the sub-cadre of the Service, as the case may be, at the time of

initial constitution of the service under rule 6(1), shall be as

obtaining on the date of commencement of these rules.

Provided that if the seniority of any such members had not been

specifically determined on the said date, the same shall be

determined on the basis of the rules governing the fixation of

seniority as were applicable to the members of the Service prior to

the commencement of these rules or in consultation with the

Commission as the case may be.

(2) The seniority of officers recruited to the Service other than

those appointed under rule 6(1) shall be determined in accordance

with the general instructions issued by the Government in the

matter from time to time.

(3) The seniority of persons recruited to the Service in accordance

with subrule (5) of rule 4 shall be fixed in the manner provided

therein.

(4) The protection, if any accorded in towards increments drawn

by the doctors who worked on contract/ad hoc basis prior to

placement at the initial constitution stage shall not be taken into

account for determining the length of service or seniority for

consideration for promotion on time scale basis subsequent to their

placement at the initial constitution stage.

***

14. Pension & other conditions of Service.-

(1) The conditions of service of the members of the service in

respect of matters not expressly provided for in these rules, shall,

mutatis mutandis and subject to any special orders issued by the

Government in respect of the service, by the same as those

applicable to officers of the Central Civil Services in general.

(2) (a) Officers appointed under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 6, prior to

1.1.2004, before the commencement of these Rules, shall be

governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

(b) Officers appointed under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6, after

1.1.2004, shall be governed by the new Pensions Scheme.

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 25 of 49

(c) Officers appointed under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 will be

governed by the new Pensions Scheme, applicable after

1.1.2004.

***

16. Power to relax.-

Where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or

expedient so to do, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in

writing, and in consultation with the Commission, relax any of the

provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of

persons.”

43. A conjoint reading of Rules 2, 5 and 6 of the 2009 DHS Rules

makes the legislative scheme abundantly clear. “Service” under Rule

2(h) of the said Rules is a defined expression referring specifically to

the DHS (Allopathy). Membership of that Service is not automatic

upon rendering duties for the Health Department. It accrues only in

the manner contemplated under Rule 5 of the said Rules. Rule 5(1)

exhaustively enumerates the categories of persons who shall be

members of the Service. Clause (b) thereof brings within the fold only

those “appointed to duty posts under Rule 6”. Thus, entry into the

Service is statutorily structured and is traceable to a specific source of

appointment under the 2009 DHS Rules.

44. Rule 6, in turn, is a transitional provision dealing with “Initial

Constitution of the Service.” Sub-rule (1) pertains to officers already

borne on the CHS who opted to join the newly constituted cadre. Sub-

rule (2) carves out a separate enabling window for contractual

appointees appointed on or before 18.12.2006, but subjects their

induction to an essential precondition, assessment of suitability by the

Commission and fulfillment of prescribed qualifications. Only upon

such assessment and being found fit are they “deemed to have been

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 26 of 49

appointed under these Rules” and assigned to the Sub-Cadre “at the

entry level” at the initial constitution stage.

45. The expression “deemed to have been appointed under these

Rules” cannot be read in isolation. The deeming fiction is expressly

tied to the stage of “initial constitution” and to assignment “at the

entry level” of the respective sub-cadre. The legal fiction, therefore, is

limited and purposive. It facilitates absorption into the newly created

cadre without undergoing a fresh process of open recruitment. It does

not, either expressly or by necessary implication, relate back the

appointment to the date of initial contractual engagement. To read

such retrospectivity into Rule 6(2) would amount to judicial

legislation.

46. This interpretation is reinforced by Rule 9 of the 2009 DHS

Rules. Rule 9(1) specifically preserves the relative seniority of those

appointed under Rule 6(1), i.e., CHS officers, as obtaining on the date

of commencement of the Rules. In contrast, there is no corresponding

provision granting preservation or carry-forward of seniority to those

inducted under Rule 6(2). On the contrary, Rule 9(4) explicitly

stipulates that protection accorded in respect of increments drawn

during contractual service prior to placement at the initial constitution

stage “shall not be taken into account for determining the length of

service or seniority” for promotional purposes thereafter. The

statutory intent is, therefore, explicit. Past contractual service may

receive limited financial protection, but it is not to be reckoned for

seniority within the cadre.

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 27 of 49

47. The structure of Rule 9 thus draws a clear distinction between

(i) preservation of existing seniority in the case of officers already

borne on a regular cadre, and (ii) fresh integration at the entry level in

the case of contractual appointees. If the rule-making authority had

intended to confer retrospective seniority upon such appointees, it

would have so provided in express terms, particularly when it

consciously addressed the subject of seniority in detail.

48. The cumulative effect of Rules 5, 6 and 9 of the 2009 DHS

Rules is that membership of the service, fixation of seniority and

determination of pensionary regime are all anchored to the statutory

event of appointment under the 2009 DHS Rules. The prior

contractual engagement, though a factual precursor, does not by itself

constitute entry into the service. It is only upon induction, pursuant to

assessment by the UPSC, that the appointee acquires the legal status

of a “member of the Service”.

49. The presence of Rule 16 of the 2009 DHS Rules conferring a

power to relax, also assumes significance. Where the rule-making

authority intended flexibility, it expressly provided a mechanism for

relaxation in consultation with the UPSC. In the absence of invocation

of such power, the Court cannot, under the guise of interpretation,

dilute the plain language of the Rules to create a benefit of

retrospective seniority which the statutory scheme consciously

withholds.

50. In light of the above statutory architecture, it becomes evident

that the Tribunal correctly appreciated that the Applicants‟ initial

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 28 of 49

contractual engagement was dehors the cadre and that their regular

entry into the service occurred only upon induction under Rule 6(2).

51. The reliance placed by the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 5221/2018 on

Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (supra) and A. Janardhana (supra) does

not advance their case beyond a point. Those decisions reiterate that,

in the absence of a specific rule to the contrary, continuous length of

service may be relevant. However, in the present case, there exists a

specific statutory framework governing induction and seniority,

namely the 2009 DHS Rules. Once the field is occupied by statutory

rules, general equitable principles cannot override the scheme of the

Rules.

52. Further, the reliance placed by the Petitioners in W.P.(C)

5221/2018 on Vijay Dhankar (supra) is misconceived. In the said

decision, the Tribunal examined the constitutional validity of Rule

6(2) of the 2009 DHS Rules and upheld the prescription of 18.12.2006

as a rational cut-off date for inclusion of contractual appointees at the

stage of initial constitution of the DHS, subject to suitability

assessment by the UPSC. The judgment merely affirms the policy

competence of the Government in structuring the initial constitution of

a newly created service and does not hold that prior contractual

service must be granted retrospective seniority or weightage beyond

what is expressly provided in the Rules. On the contrary, it recognises

the limited and conditional nature of induction under Rule 6(2), and

therefore does not advance the Petitioners‟ claim for reckoning past

contractual service for seniority or promotional benefits.

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 29 of 49

53. Equally, the contention that delay on the part of the State in

framing the Rules should not prejudice the Applicants cannot lead to

conferment of seniority dehors the Rules. Seniority is a statutory right.

It cannot be claimed on the basis of long service alone, particularly

when such service was admittedly contractual and not borne on the

cadre.

54. This Court also finds merit in the submission of the GNCTD

that contractual engagement, by its very nature, does not create a lien

on a post nor does it confer membership of the service. The deeming

provision in Rule 6(2) operates only from the stage of initial

constitution and cannot be extended by implication to rewrite the date

of entry into service for purposes of seniority.

55. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the Tribunal was justified in declining the prayer for reckoning

seniority from the date of initial contractual engagement.

56. The challenge to the Notification dated 20.08.2014, whereby

23.12.2009 was fixed as the date of induction into the DHS pursuant

to Rule 6(2), also does not merit interference. The said Notification

merely operationalised the statutory scheme by specifying the date on

which the Petitioners stood inducted at the entry level after due

process, and does not create or extinguish rights dehors the 2009 DHS

Rules. In the absence of any demonstrated arbitrariness or violation of

the 2009 DHS Rules, no ground for interference in the exercise of writ

jurisdiction is made out.

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 30 of 49

B. Whether contractual service is liable to be counted for pension

57. The next and more nuanced issue pertains to pensionary

benefits. In W.P.(C) 1265/2018, the Tribunal directed that the period

rendered by the Applicants on contractual basis be taken into

consideration towards qualifying service for pension, subject to and in

accordance with the applicable rules.

58. The GNCTD has assailed even this limited relief, contending

that officers inducted under Rule 6(2) are statutorily governed by Rule

14(2)(c) and, consequently, by the New Pension Scheme, and that the

Rules do not envisage reckoning of pre-induction contractual service

for pensionary purposes.

59. The Applicants, on the other hand, rely upon the decisions in

Sheela Devi (supra) and S.D. Jayaprakash (supra) to contend that

past contractual service, followed by regularisation, must be counted

towards qualifying service for pension where the governing rules so

permit.

60. At this juncture, it becomes relevant to refer to some of the

provisions of the CCSP Rules, which are extracted hereunder:

“3. Definitions.-

(1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:

(q) „Qualifying Service‟ means service rendered while on duty

or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the

purpose of pensions and gratuities admissible under these

rules.

***

13. Commencement of qualifying service.-

Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a

Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 31 of 49

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.

Provided further that:

(a) in the case of a Government servant in a Group „D‟ service

or post who held a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent

pensionable post prior to the 17th April, 1950, service

rendered before attaining the age of sixteen years shall not

count for any purpose, and

(b) in the case of a Government servant not covered by clause

(a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years

shall not count, except for compensation gratuity.

(c) the provisions of clause (b) shall not be applicable in the

cases of counting of military service for civil pension under

Rule 19.

***

17. Counting of service on contract.-

(1) A person who is initially engaged by the Government on a

contract for a specified period and is subsequently appointed to the

same or another post in a substantive capacity in a pensionable

establishment without interruption of duty, may opt either:

(a) to retain the Government contribution in the Contributory

Provident Fund with interest thereon including any other

compensation for that service; or

(b) to agree to refund to the Government the monetary benefits

referred to in Clause (a) or to forgo the same if they have not

been paid to him and count in lieu thereof the service for which

the aforesaid monetary benefits may have been payable.

(2) The option under sub-rule (1) shall be communicated to the

Head of Office under intimation to the Accounts Officer within a

period of three months from the date of issue of the order of

permanent transfer to pensionable service, or if the Government

servant is on leave on that day, within three months of his return

from leave, whichever is later.

(3) If no communication is received by the Head of Office within

the period referred to in sub-rule (2), the Government servant shall

be deemed to have opted for the retention of the monetary benefits

payable or paid to him on account of service rendered on

contract.”

(Emphasis supplied)

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 32 of 49

61. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions indicates that the

CCSP Rules do not adopt an inflexible approach in excluding pre-

regularisation service. While Rule 13 provides that qualifying service

ordinarily commences from the date of first appointment to a post,

whether substantive, officiating or temporary, it expressly permits

counting of temporary or officiating service where it is followed,

without interruption, by substantive appointment.

62. More significantly, Rule 17 specifically contemplates a

situation where an employee initially engaged on contract is

subsequently appointed substantively in a pensionable establishment,

and enables such contractual service to be counted, subject to exercise

of option and compliance with the prescribed conditions. The

statutory framework, therefore, recognises that prior contractual

service is not per se alien to pensionary reckoning. Its inclusion

depends upon fulfilment of the conditions stipulated therein.

63. It is in this statutory backdrop that the Tribunal examined the

matter. In the Impugned Order, it noticed that qualifying service

ordinarily begins from substantive appointment. At the same time, it

recorded that where service has been rendered against sanctioned

posts and is followed by regularisation without interruption, the CCSP

Rules themselves contemplate counting of such service, if the

statutory requirements are met. The direction issued is thus rooted in

the text of the CCSP Rules.

64. The Tribunal also adverted to its earlier findings in O.A.

No.2564/1997, where the Applicants, though styled as contractual

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 33 of 49

appointees, were held entitled to parity in pay on the principle of equal

pay for equal work. That determination recognised the substantive

nature of duties discharged by them against sanctioned posts. While

such a finding does not, by itself, confer pensionary entitlement, it

constitutes a relevant factual backdrop in examining whether the

nature of service rendered can be considered under the pension rules.

65. This Court is conscious that the statutory scheme contains clear

internal limitations which cannot be overlooked. Rule 9(4) of the 2009

DHS Rules incorporates an express embargo by stipulating that the

protection, if any, granted in respect of increments earned during the

contractual period prior to placement at the stage of initial constitution

shall not be reckoned for determining length of service or seniority for

promotion on time-scale basis.

66. Similarly, Rule 14(2)(c) of the 2009 DHS Rules mandates that

officers appointed under Rule 6(2) shall be governed by the New

Pension Scheme applicable after 01.01.2004. The language employed

is explicit and admits of no discretion. These provisions demonstrate

that while the Rules make a structured accommodation for induction

of contractual appointees, they simultaneously impose clear

boundaries in matters of seniority and pension regime.

67. However, this Court is equally guided by the settled principle

that pension is not a matter of grace but a deferred portion of

compensation for past service. Pensionary provisions, being measures

of social security, must receive a fair and beneficial construction. At

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 34 of 49

the same time, it is equally trite that the right to pension must emanate

from, and be circumscribed by, the governing statutory rules.

68. The view taken by the Tribunal also finds support in subsequent

judicial pronouncements. In Sheela Devi (supra), the Supreme Court

recognised that where employees had rendered contractual service

which was later followed by regularisation, such service could not be

ignored for pensionary purposes if the governing rules permitted its

reckoning. The principle was reiterated in S.D. Jayaprakash (supra),

where the Court, in the context of temporary and contractual

appointees subsequently regularised, directed that the pre-

regularisation service be considered in terms of Rule 17 of the CCSP

Rules. These decisions underscore that the determinative factor is not

the nomenclature of the initial appointment, but whether the statutory

mechanism enables counting of such service upon subsequent

substantive appointment.

69. Similar reasoning is discernible in Dr. Praveen Kumar (supra),

where the Jharkhand High Court examined the applicability of the

pension regime in light of the date of initiation of the recruitment

process, and in Harbans Lal (supra) decision by the Punjab and

Haryana High Court, wherein the daily-wage service preceding

regularisation was directed to be counted towards qualifying service

for pension. While each of these decisions turned on their respective

statutory frameworks, the common thread is that service rendered

continuously against sanctioned posts and followed by regularisation

cannot be excluded from pensionary consideration by a purely

formalistic approach. It is this principle, subject always to the

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 35 of 49

controlling statutory rules, that informs and sustains the limited

direction issued by the Tribunal in the present case.

70. Viewed in that perspective, it is the considered view of this

Court that the Tribunal has not conferred any blanket or automatic

benefit upon the Applicants. It has merely directed that the period of

contractual service be considered towards qualifying service “in

accordance with the applicable rules.” Such a direction does not dilute

the embargo under Rule 9(4) nor does it override Rule 14(2)(c). It

mandates only a rule-compliant examination within the statutory

framework.

71. This Court, therefore, finds no infirmity in the approach

adopted by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos.604/2014 and 238/2015 in

directing consideration of past contractual service for pension, subject

to satisfaction of statutory preconditions. The direction neither creates

a right dehors the 2009 DHS Rules nor expands their scope, it merely

ensures that service, if otherwise admissible under the CCSP Rules, is

not excluded by a mechanical or hyper-technical application of the

statutory scheme.

72. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that:

i. The Applicants are not entitled to reckoning of seniority

from the date of their initial contractual engagement.

ii. The fixation of 23.12.2009 as the date of induction under

the 2009 DHS Rules does not suffer from illegality warranting

interference.

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 36 of 49

iii. The direction of the Tribunal to consider counting of

contractual service towards qualifying service for pension, in

accordance with the applicable rules, is justified and does not call

for interference.

73. Consequently, W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and W.P.(C) 5221/2018 are

liable to be dismissed, subject to the above observations.

74. In view of the findings of this Court on the principal questions

relating to (i) reckoning of seniority from the date of initial contractual

engagement, and (ii) counting of such service towards qualifying

service for pension, which constituted the core controversy in the

present batch, this Court now proceeds to examine each Writ Petition

separately on its own facts and the reliefs claimed therein.

IN W.P.(C)7531/2022:

75. This Writ Petition assails the Impugned Order dated 23.12.2021

passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.3556/2018.

76. The submissions advanced on behalf of the GNCTD are in line

with the contentions already noticed in Paragraph No.33 hereinabove.

It is reiterated that seniority cannot be claimed from the date of initial

contractual engagement and that any counting of such service must

strictly conform to the statutory framework under the 2009 DHS

Rules and the applicable pension rules.

77. The Petitioners contend that they were appointed on a

contractual basis in the year 1996 against sanctioned posts and had

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 37 of 49

rendered continuous service prior to their induction under the 2009

DHS Rules. It is urged that once their suitability was assessed by the

UPSC under Rule 6(2) and they were inducted at the stage of initial

constitution, their past service ought to be duly recognised both for

seniority and pension.

78. The principal grievance, however, is directed against the nature

of the relief granted by the Tribunal. It is submitted that although the

Tribunal directed consideration of the period spent on contractual

service, it made such consideration subject to the outcome of W.P.(C)

1265/2018.

79. A perusal of the Impugned Order dated 23.12.2021 shows that

the Tribunal did not grant unconditional relief. While directing the

Respondents to consider the counting of the contractual service, the

Tribunal expressly made the same subject to the decision of this Court

in W.P.(C) 1265/2018, which involved an identical issue concerning

seniority and pension.

80. In the preceding part of this judgment, this Court has already

adjudicated upon the issues which formed the basis of the conditional

direction. At the cost of repetition, this Court has held that:

i. Seniority cannot be granted from the date of initial

contractual engagement; and

ii. Counting of such service for pension is permissible only

in accordance with the applicable statutory rules.

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 38 of 49

81. In that view of the matter, the conditional direction issued by

the Tribunal no longer survives as contingent. The issue having now

been decided in the present batch, the relief granted in O.A.

No.3556/2018 must operate in terms of the conclusions recorded

herein.

82. Accordingly, it is clarified that the Petitioners in W.P.(C)

7531/2022 shall not be entitled to seniority from the date of their

initial contractual engagement. However, their claim for counting of

contractual service towards qualifying service for pension shall be

examined by the GNCTD strictly in accordance with the applicable

pension rules and in terms of the principles upheld in Paragraph

Nos.57-71 above.

83. With the above clarification, W.P.(C) 7531/2022 stands

disposed of.

IN W.P.(C) 10928/2019:

84. This Court now proceeds to examine W.P.(C) 10928/2019,

which arises out of O.A. No.4442/2014 and challenges the Impugned

Order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the Tribunal.

85. The submissions advanced on behalf of the GNCTD are in

consonance with the contentions already recorded in Paragraph No.33

hereinabove.

86. On behalf of the Petitioners, it is contended that they were

appointed in the year 2002 after due advertisement and selection

against sanctioned posts and continued to serve without interruption.

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 39 of 49

It is urged that the nature of duties discharged by them was identical

to that of regularly appointed doctors and that their subsequent

induction under Rule 6(2) was merely a formal recognition of their

long-standing service.

87. The Petitioners assail the Impugned Order insofar as it rejects

their claim for seniority from the date of initial contractual

engagement and seek quashing/modification of the Notification dated

20.08.2014. A further challenge is laid to Rule 9(4) of the 2009 DHS

Rules, contending that the same operates to their detriment in matters

of seniority and pension.

88. A perusal of the Impugned Order dated 25.07.2019 shows that

the Tribunal, while rejecting the claim for seniority from the date of

initial contractual appointment, directed that the period of contractual

service be counted towards qualifying service for pension, subject to

the governing rules.

89. The issue relating to seniority from the date of initial

contractual engagement stands concluded by the findings of this Court

in Paragraph Nos.40-56 above. This Court has held that in the

presence of a specific statutory framework under the 2009 DHS Rules,

seniority cannot be claimed retrospectively from the date of

contractual engagement, and that the fixation of 23.12.2009 as the

date of induction does not warrant interference.

90. Insofar as the challenge to Rule 9(4) of the 2009 DHS Rules is

concerned, this Court finds that the said Rule forms part of the

statutory scheme governing the constitution and conditions of service

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 40 of 49

under the DHS. The Petitioners have not demonstrated that the Rule is

ultra vires the parent statute or violative of any constitutional

mandate. Merely because its operation does not advance their claim

for retrospective seniority would not render it invalid.

91. As regards pension, the Tribunal has granted limited relief by

directing counting of contractual service towards qualifying service in

accordance with the applicable rules. In light of the conclusions of this

Court in Paragraph Nos.57-71, such direction is in consonance with

settled principles and does not suffer from any infirmity.

92. Accordingly, W.P.(C) 10928/2019 is liable to be dismissed. The

rejection of the claim for retrospective seniority is upheld. The

direction of the Tribunal permitting counting of contractual service for

pension, subject to statutory rules, is affirmed.

IN W.P.(C) 167/2019:

93. This Court now proceeds to examine W.P.(C) 167/2019, which

arises out of O.A. No.1246/2017 and assails the Impugned Order

dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Tribunal.

94. The submissions advanced on behalf of the GNCTD are in line

with the contentions already recorded in Paragraph No.33

hereinabove. It is submitted that seniority cannot be reckoned from the

date of initial contractual engagement. Insofar as the pension is

concerned, it is urged that the Tribunal rightly declined the benefit of

counting contractual service towards qualifying service, as the

Petitioner was governed by the New Pension Scheme and did not

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 41 of 49

satisfy the eligibility conditions under the applicable statutory

provisions.

95. On behalf of the Petitioner, it is contended that she had

rendered long years of uninterrupted contractual service against

sanctioned posts prior to her induction under the 2009 DHS Rules.

While the claim for retrospective seniority has been pressed, the

principal grievance now survives with respect to pensionary benefits.

96. Insofar as the claim for seniority from the date of initial

contractual engagement is concerned, the same stands concluded by

the findings in the earlier part of this judgment. For the reasons

already recorded, the Petitioner is not entitled to seniority from a date

prior to her induction under the 2009 DHS Rules.

97. However, with regard to pension, this Court has held that

contractual service rendered against sanctioned posts, if otherwise

continuous and followed by induction under the 2009 DHS Rules, is

liable to be counted towards qualifying service for pension, subject to

the applicable statutory provisions.

98. The Impugned Order dated 20.08.2018 declined such benefit to

the Petitioner. In view of the determination of the issue in W.P.(C)

1265/2018 and W.P.(C) 5221/2018, the Petitioner herein is entitled to

parity.

99. Accordingly, W.P.(C) 167/2019 is partly allowed. The rejection

of the claim for retrospective seniority is upheld. However, the

Impugned Order is set aside to the limited extent it denies counting of

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 42 of 49

contractual service towards qualifying service for pension. The

Respondents are directed to re-compute the Petitioner‟s qualifying

service for pension by including the period of contractual service,

subject to fulfillment of the statutory conditions, within a period of

twelve weeks.

100. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

IN W.P.(C) 4929/2019:

101. This Court now takes up W.P.(C) 4929/2019, which arises out

of O.A. No.4018/2016 and assails the Impugned Order dated

19.02.2019 passed by the Tribunal.

102. The submissions advanced on behalf of the GNCTD are in

terms of the contentions already recorded in Paragraph No.33

hereinabove. It is contended that the Petitioner was initially engaged

on contractual basis, her services came to be terminated on 23.11.2007

on account of unauthorized absence and the said Termination Order

was never set aside.

103. It is further submitted that though the Petitioner was taken back

into service pursuant to interim orders of the Supreme Court, there

was a clear break in service between 23.11.2007 and 03.11.2010.

Consequently, any claim for continuity of service for purposes of

seniority or pension is legally untenable. It is further urged that the

Petitioner is governed by the statutory framework of the 2009 DHS

Rules and cannot claim benefits dehors the Rules.

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 43 of 49

104. On behalf of the Petitioner, it is contended that she was initially

appointed in 1996 on contractual basis after due selection and had

rendered several years of service before proceeding on leave. It is

urged that she was ultimately reinstated pursuant to orders of the

Supreme Court and was directed to be treated as eligible for

consideration for regularization by the UPSC. It is submitted that the

break in service ought not to be put against her, particularly when she

was taken back into service and thereafter inducted under the 2009

DHS Rules. The Petitioner claims parity with other similarly situated

doctors in matters of seniority and pension.

105. The Impugned Order dated 19.02.2019 records that the

Petitioner‟s contractual services were terminated on 23.11.2007 due to

unauthorized absence, the challenge to the termination did not

culminate in the order being set aside and she was taken back into

service only pursuant to interim directions of the Supreme Court. The

Tribunal held that the termination order having remained intact, there

was a clear break in service.

106. Insofar as the claim for seniority from the date of initial

contractual engagement is concerned, the same stands concluded by

the findings of this Court in the earlier part of this judgment. The

Petitioner cannot claim seniority from a date prior to her induction

under the 2009 DHS Rules.

107. However, the present case stands on a distinct footing in

relation to pension. This Court has held in the other connected matters

that contractual service rendered against sanctioned posts, if otherwise

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 44 of 49

eligible under the governing rules, is liable to be counted towards

qualifying service for pension.

108. The question that arises here is whether the period prior to

23.11.2007 and the period commencing from 03.11.2010 can be taken

into account for pensionary benefits.

109. Admittedly, the Termination Order dated 23.11.2007 was never

set aside. The Petitioner was taken back into service pursuant to

interim directions, but no declaration of continuity of service was

granted by the Supreme Court. In the absence of the Termination

Order being quashed, the break in service cannot be ignored for all

purposes.

110. In these circumstances, it becomes pertinent to adjudicate

whether the Petitioner would be entitled to treat the entire period as

continuous service. However, at this stage, the contractual service

actually rendered by her prior to termination (i.e., up to 23.11.2007)

and the service rendered after her rejoining on 03.11.2010 may be

considered for purposes of qualifying service for pension, subject to

the statutory framework and excluding the interregnum period.

111. To this limited extent, the Impugned Order warrants

interference. The denial of retrospective seniority is upheld. However,

for purposes of pension, the Respondents shall compute the

Petitioner‟s qualifying service by including the periods during which

she actually rendered service on contractual basis and thereafter upon

induction, but excluding the period between 23.11.2007 and

03.11.2010.

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 45 of 49

112. W.P.(C) 4929/2019 is accordingly partly allowed in the above

terms. The necessary exercise shall be undertaken within twelve

weeks.

113. It is, however, clarified that the remaining issues arising in the

present Writ Petition shall be considered and decided after further

hearing the matter.

IN W.P.(C) 835/2020:

114. This Court now takes up W.P.(C) 835/2020, which arises out of

O.A. No.2837/2019 and assails the Impugned Order dated 23.09.2019

passed by the Tribunal.

115. The submissions advanced on behalf of the GNCTD are in

terms of the contentions already recorded in Paragraph No.33

hereinabove. It is contended that the seniority list in question was only

a revised tentative list prepared in accordance with the 2009 DHS

Rules and the Notification dated 20.08.2014 fixing 23.12.2009 as the

date of induction.

116. On behalf of the Petitioners, it is contended that the revised

tentative seniority list failed to reflect their long years of contractual

service and that there was a genuine apprehension that promotions

may be effected on its basis, thereby prejudicing their rights.

117. The Tribunal, in the Impugned Order, specifically noted that the

very nomenclature of the lists published by the Respondents was

“revised tentative seniority list”. It was observed that the record was

not clear as to when the earlier tentative list had been published and

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 46 of 49

that the Applicants as well as various other employees had already

submitted their representations.

118. The Tribunal reasoned that it would naturally take some time

for the Respondents to consider the representations and finalise the

seniority list. The apprehension expressed by the Applicants that

promotions might be effected on the basis of the revised tentative

seniority list was found to be without basis.

119. The Tribunal further adverted to the order dated 07.07.2018 and

clarified that the said order merely mentioned that the tentative

seniority list may be taken into account by all the HODs in “all

protocols” till the final list was published. It was nowhere stated that

promotions would be effected on the basis of the tentative seniority

list. On this reasoning, no interference was considered warranted at

that stage.

120. In addition, the Tribunal reiterated that seniority must be

governed by the 2009 DHS Rules and that contractual service could

not be reckoned for fixation of inter se seniority in the absence of an

enabling provision.

121. The reasoning so adopted by the Tribunal is consistent with the

statutory scheme and also accords with the conclusions in the earlier

part of this judgment, wherein this Court has upheld the fixation of

seniority with reference to 23.12.2009 and have held that contractual

service cannot be counted for seniority.

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 47 of 49

122. This Court, therefore, finds no infirmity in the Impugned Order.

The challenge to the revised tentative seniority list was rightly

repelled.

123. Insofar as pension is concerned, the entitlement of the

Petitioners to counting of contractual service towards qualifying

service shall be governed by the directions issued in the W.P.(C)

1265/2018 and W.P. (C) 5221/2018.

124. W.P.(C) 835/2020 is accordingly dismissed, subject to the

observations regarding pension as recorded hereinabove.

CONCLUSION:

125. In view of the foregoing discussion, the principal issue raised in

this batch of Writ Petitions, namely, the claim of seniority from the

date of initial contractual engagement, stands answered against the

Applicants. This Court has held that, under the statutory scheme of the

2009 DHS Rules, seniority can be reckoned only from the date of

induction into the Service and not from any anterior date of

contractual engagement.

126. Insofar as pension is concerned, this Court has clarified that

contractual service rendered against sanctioned posts, if otherwise

continuous and followed by induction under the 2009 DHS Rules,

shall be counted towards qualifying service strictly in accordance with

the applicable statutory provisions, however, such counting shall not

confer any right to retrospective seniority or disturb inter se position

in the cadre.

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 48 of 49

127. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of in the following

terms:

i. W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and W.P.(C) 5221/2018: The

challenge to fixation of 23.12.2009 as the date of induction and

to denial of retrospective seniority is rejected. However, it is held

that contractual service rendered against sanctioned posts shall be

liable to be counted towards qualifying service for pension,

subject to the governing statutory provisions. Hence, the said

Writ Petitions are dismissed, subject to hereinabove stated

directions.

ii. W.P.(C) 7531/2022 and W.P.(C) 10928/2019: The

rejection of the claim for retrospective seniority is upheld. The

directions of the Tribunal permitting counting of contractual

service towards pension, subject to statutory conditions, are

affirmed. Thus, W.P.(C) 7531/2022 is disposed of in aforestated

terms and W.P.(C) 10928/2019 is dismissed.

iii. W.P.(C) 167/2019: The denial of retrospective seniority

is upheld. However, the Writ Petition is partly allowed to the

extent that the Petitioner shall be entitled to counting of

contractual service towards qualifying service for pension,

subject to statutory conditions. Thus, the present Writ Petition is

disposed of in aforesatated terms.

iv. W.P.(C) 835/2020: The challenge to the revised tentative

seniority list is rejected and the reasoning of the Tribunal is

affirmed. The Writ Petition is dismissed, subject to the

observations regarding pension in terms of the present judgment.

W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and connected matters Page 49 of 49

v. W.P.(C) 4929/2019: The claim for retrospective seniority

is rejected. The Writ Petition is partly allowed to the limited

extent that, for purposes of pension, the periods during which the

Petitioner actually rendered service shall be counted towards

qualifying service, excluding the interregnum during which she

remained out of service pursuant to termination. Other issues

shall be considered on 01.04.2026. List this Petition on

01.04.2026 in the Supplementary List.

128. All pending applications, except in W.P.(C) 4929/2019, also

stand closed.

129. Before parting, this Court deems it appropriate to reiterate, in

one composite direction, that wherever relief has been granted with

respect to pension, the competent authority shall undertake the

exercise of re-computation of qualifying service strictly in accordance

with the applicable statutory framework, keeping in view the

observations contained in the present judgment. The said directions

shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks. It is clarified that

the benefit, if found admissible, shall be confined only to qualifying

service for pension and shall not, in any manner, alter the seniority or

inter se position of any member of the Service.

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.

AMIT MAHAJAN , J.

MARCH 10, 2026

s.godara/shah