Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr vs Ashwani Kumar Solanki & Anr.

$~79 & 83
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4428/2026, CM APPL. 21738-39/2026
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Mr. Uday Singh Ahlawat, Ms. Tania
Ahlawat and Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh,
Advocates.

versus

ASHWANI KUMAR SOLANKI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Bhawna Khanagwal,
Advocate for R-1.
Mr Ravinder Agarwal, Manish Kumar
Singh, Vasu Agarwal Advocates for UPSC.

+ W.P.(C) 4446/2026, CM APPL. 21772-73/2026
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Mr. Uday Singh Ahlawat, Ms. Tania
Ahlawat and Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh,
Advocates.

versus

SATYAJEET KUMAR SINGH & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Bhawna Khanagwal,
Advocate for R-1.
Mr Ravinder Agarwal, Manish Kumar
Singh, Vasu Agarwal Advocates for UPSC.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
ORDER (ORAL)
% 06.04.2026
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4428/2026 & conn. Page 1 of 6

Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:20.04.2026
13:10:58

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.


1. These writ petitions assail a common judgment dated 1 July
1
2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 1151/2024
2
and OA 1595/2024 .

2. The facts in the two cases are identical. The Tribunal has also
disposed of the OAs by a common judgment, under challenge before
us.

3. The respondents in both these cases worked as Assistant Public
3
Prosecutors on contractual basis with the Directorate of Prosecution,
Home Department, GNCTD. They applied in response to
Advertisement 02/2021 dated 22 January 2021, issued by the Union
4
Public Service Commission , for recruitment to 80 posts of APP. They
5
sought age relaxation in terms of Office Memorandum dated 11 June
2019 issued by the service department of the GNCTD.

4. In an earlier round of litigation, this Court, in WP (C)
9378/2021 and other connected cases, passed judgment dated 2
November 2023, directing the UPSC to grant age relaxation to the
respondents as a one-time measure in terms of OM dated 11 June
2019.

5. The entitlement of the appellants to age relaxation is the issue in

1
Ashwani Kumar Solanki v. GNCTD
2
Satyajeet Kumar Singh v. GNCTD & Anr.
3
“APPs” hereinafter
4
“UPSC” hereinafter
5
“OM” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4428/2026 & conn. Page 2 of 6

Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:20.04.2026
13:10:58

controversy.

6. Para 2(ii) of the OM dated 11 June 2019 reads thus:
“2(II) The contractual employees working against all other
administrative posts, will be eligible for one time relaxation in
upper age limit upto maximum period of 5 years. The quantum of
age relaxation will be subject to number of years spent in the
department on contract basis provided, they have worked for at
least 180 days in a particular year.”

7. The dispute, before the Tribunal as well as before this Court,
turns on the interpretation of the expression “in a particular year” as
employed in the afore-extracted sub-para 2(II) of the OM.

8. On the ground that the respondents did not have, to their credit,
180 days service in any calendar year spanning January to December,
the GNCTD rejected the candidature of the respondent. Aggrieved
thereby, the respondents approached the Tribunal by way of OAs, in
which the judgment under challenge has come to be rendered.

9. The Tribunal faulted the GNCTD for having interpreted the
word “particular year” as “calendar year”. In the absence of any
specific stipulation that the service of 180 days was required to be
rendered in a calendar year, the Tribunal held that the GNCTD was
not justified in according such an interpretation to the clause in
question.

10. The reasoning of the Tribunal, in this regard, as contained in
para 28, 30 and 31 of the impugned judgment, merit reproduction
thus:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4428/2026 & conn. Page 3 of 6

Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:20.04.2026
13:10:58

“28. The term “particular year” used in the OM does not
explicitly define the year as a calendar year. Respondents maintain
service records financial year wise. The APAR's of the employees,
salary and income tax etc are deducted financial year basis.
Respondents themselves are not consistent with engaging the
candidates on contractual basis. It not there case that the contracts
are issued only at the beginning of the calendar year. When the
respondents are engaging the candidates as per convenience it
would be unreasonble to the candidate to deny benefit of his
employment. Contrarily it is reasonable and consistent with the
department's own practices to interpret the "particular year" as an
academic or financial year, or any continuous 12-month period
relevant to the nature of the contractual engagement.

*
30. Moreover, the Directorate of Prosecution, Government of
NCT of Delhi, issues experience certificates and calculates service
periods on a financial or academic year basis (from 1st April to
31st March or 1st July to 30th June), which aligns with the
applicant's contention.

31. Considering the above, the method of counting service
strictly by the calendar year results in an arbitrary and mechanical
calculation that defeats the purpose and intent of the OM and the
binding judgment of the Hon'ble High Court.”

11. Accordingly, the Tribunal has directed the GNCTD to
reconsider and respondents’ eligibility to age relaxation by
interpretation the words “particular year” as “financial year”.

12. Aggrieved thereby, the GNCTD has filed the present writ
petition.

13. We have heard Mr. N.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the
petitioner at length.

14. Mr. Singh submits that there was no justification for the
Tribunal to read the words “particular year” as “calendar year”. A
year, he submits, is a year, and spans the period from January to
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4428/2026 & conn. Page 4 of 6

Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:20.04.2026
13:10:58

December. The interpretation given by the Tribunal to the office
memorandum, according to Mr. Singh, is strained and unnatural, and
does not align with the intent of the OM.

15. We are unable to agree.

16. We find no error in the view taken by the Tribunal, rejecting the
petitioners’ interpretation of the word “particular year” in the GNCTD
OM dated 11 June 2019 as the calendar year.

17. Clearly, the OM does not specify that the words “a particular
year” has to be understood as “a calendar year”. The Tribunal has in
para 28 of the impugned judgment, provided cogent reasons for not
accepting the petitioners’ submission that the year in question should
be the financial year.

18. Mr. Singh is unable to show us any instruction or precedent to
the effect that the word “year” in the OM is to be read as “calendar
year”.

19. It goes without saying that if there is any ambiguity in any
service rule or administrative instruction, the benefit of the ambiguity
goes to the employee rather than to the department.

20. Accordingly, no case is made out to interfere with the judgment
of the Tribunal.



Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4428/2026 & conn. Page 5 of 6

Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:20.04.2026
13:10:58

21. The petitions are dismissed in limine .


C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
APRIL 6, 2026/pa


Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4428/2026 & conn. Page 6 of 6

Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:20.04.2026
13:10:58