Contractual service counts toward qualifying service for pension but cannot be reckoned for seniority.

The Respondents/Petitioners (doctors) were initially engaged by the Health and Family Welfare Department of the GNCTD on a contractual basis against sanctioned posts between 1996 and 2006

While they were paid at par with regular doctors following a 1997 Tribunal order, they were not appointed through the statutory Recruitment Rules at that time

In 2009, the Delhi Health Services (Allopathy) Rules (“2009 Rules”) were notified to create an independent cadre

Under Rule 6(2), contractual doctors appointed before 18.12.2006 were inducted into the service at the entry level effective 23.12.2009, following a suitability assessment by the UPSC

The doctors approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking seniority from their initial dates of contractual engagement and the counting of that period for pension

The CAT rejected the seniority claims but gave varying orders regarding pension, leading to these cross-petitions

Whether the period of contractual service rendered prior to regular appointment under the 2009 Rules is liable to be counted for the purpose of reckoning seniority

Whether such contractual service period must be reckoned towards "qualifying service" for pension under the applicable service rules

The court primarily applied the Delhi Health Services (Allopathy) Rules, 2009, specifically Rule 6(2) regarding initial constitution

Rule 9(4) which expressly prohibits counting contractual service for seniority or time-scale promotions

Rule 14(2)(c) which mandates the New Pension Scheme for Rule 6(2) appointees

It further relied on Rules 13 and 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which allow temporary or contractual service to count as "qualifying service" if followed by substantive appointment without interruption

Precedents including State of H.P. v. Sheela Devi and S.D. Jayaprakash v. Union of India established that continuous service against sanctioned posts followed by regularization should be considered for pensionary benefits if statutory rules permit

The Court reasoned that seniority is a statutory right governed strictly by the 2009 Rules

Rule 6(2) creates a limited "deeming fiction" for induction at the "entry level" only from the date of the Rules' commencement; it does not retrospectively transform contractual status into cadre membership

Rule 9(4) serves as an explicit statutory embargo against counting the contractual period for seniority

Regarding pension, the Court distinguished seniority from "qualifying service."

While the 2009 Rules fix the pension regime (New Pension Scheme), they do not override the general principles of the CCS (Pension) Rules which recognize that long-term continuous service against sanctioned posts, even on contract, constitutes a earned right toward pension once the employee is regularized

The Court found that directed "consideration" of this period for pension does not violate Rule 14(2)(c) as it merely ensures a rule-compliant calculation of the total length of service for eligibility

However, it held that contractual service rendered against sanctioned posts must be counted toward "qualifying service" for pension, provided the service was continuous and fulfills the criteria under the CCS (Pension) Rules

The Court dismissed the GNCTD’s appeals against the pension benefit and dismissed the doctors' petitions for retrospective seniority

In the specific case of Dr. Radha Dubey [W.P.(C) 4929/2019], the Court excluded the interregnum period of unauthorized absence/termination from the pension calculation but allowed the actual service periods to be counted

The GNCTD was directed to re-compute qualifying service within twelve weeks