Contractual service counts toward qualifying service for pension but not for seniority in the Delhi Health Services.

The petitioners/respondents (collectively "Applicants") were doctors 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 performed duties identical to regular doctors, they were not appointed through the statutory recruitment process

In 2009, the Delhi Health Services (Allopathy) Rules ("2009 DHS Rules") were notified to constitute a formal cadre

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

The Applicants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking seniority from their initial dates of contractual engagement and the counting of that period toward pensionary benefits

CAT rejected the seniority claims but passed varying orders regarding pension; some cases allowed counting contractual service for pension, while others denied it based on the New Pension Scheme (NPS)

Both the GNCTD and the doctors challenged these orders

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

Whether such contractual service must be reckoned as qualifying service for pension under the applicable service rules?

Whether a break in service caused by an un-quashed termination order affects the counting of past service for pension? (Specific to W.P.(C) 4929/2019)

The Court primarily applied Rule 6 and Rule 9 of the 2009 DHS Rules, which dictate that membership in the service for contractual employees begins only upon induction at the "entry level" after a suitability assessment

Rule 9(4) specifically bars the use of prior contractual service increments for determining seniority or promotional length of service

Regarding pension, the Court applied Rules 13 and 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which allow temporary or contractual service to be counted as "qualifying service" if followed by a substantive appointment without interruption

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court precedents in *State of H.P. v. Sheela Devi* and *S.D. Jayaprakash v. Union of India*, which establish that continuous service against sanctioned posts followed by regularization cannot be ignored for pensionary purposes if statutory rules permit

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

Since Rule 6(2) defines induction as a "deemed appointment" at the "entry level" at the stage of initial constitution, and Rule 9(4) expressly excludes pre-induction service for seniority, the Applicants cannot claim retrospective seniority from their contractual start dates

However, the Court distinguished seniority from pensionary benefits

It found that Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules provides a mechanism to count contractual service if the employee was subsequently appointed to a substantive post in a pensionable establishment

The Court held that despite Rule 14(2)(c) of the 2009 DHS Rules placing these doctors under the NPS (post-2004), the "qualifying service" for pension eligibility must still be calculated by looking at the total continuous service rendered against sanctioned posts

In the specific case of Dr. Radha Dubey, the Court noted that since her termination order was never set aside, the interregnum period constituted a legal break that could not be counted, though her actual service periods before and after the break remained eligible

It further held that contractual service rendered against sanctioned posts must be counted toward "qualifying service" for pension, subject to the specific provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules

The GNCTD was directed to re-compute the qualifying service for the applicable doctors within twelve weeks

W.P.(C) 1265/2018, 5221/2018, 10928/2019, and 835/2020 were dismissed/disposed of with the aforementioned pension directions

W.P.(C) 167/2019 and 4929/2019 were partly allowed to include actual service periods for pension while excluding the period of unauthorized absence for the latter