Contractual service counts toward qualifying service for pension but not for seniority in the newly constituted cadre.

The petitioners (contractual doctors) were engaged by the Health and Department of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) starting from 1996 onwards against sanctioned posts through public advertisements.

In 2009, the Delhi Health Services (Allopathy) Rules were notified to constitute an independent cadre.

Rule 6(2) of the 2009 Rules allowed for the induction of contractual doctors appointed on or before 18.12.2006 into the DHS at the "entry level," subject to suitability assessments by the UPSC.

Following such assessments, the doctors were inducted with a regular status effective from 23.12.2009.

The Applicants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking seniority from their initial dates of contractual appointment and the counting of that period toward "qualifying service" for pension.

The Tribunal rejected the seniority claims but gave varying orders regarding pensionary benefits across different Original Applications.

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

Whether such contractual service must be reckoned toward "qualifying service" for pension under the applicable service rules.

The court primarily applied Rules 6(2), 9(4), and 14(2)(c) of the Delhi Health Services (Allopathy) Rules, 2009, which stipulate that contractual appointees are inducted at the "entry level" and that prior increments do not count toward seniority.

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

The court also adhered to the principles in State of H.P. v. Sheela Devi and S.D. Jayaprakash v. Union of India, establishing that pre-regularization service against sanctioned posts should not be ignored for pensionary benefits if statutory rules permit such reckoning.

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

Rule 6(2) employs a "deeming fiction" for induction at the "entry level" at the initial constitution stage only, and Rule 9(4) explicitly prohibits counting contractual-period increments for length of service or seniority.

Thus, retrospective seniority cannot be granted as it would override the express statutory intent.

Conversely, regarding pension, the Court noted that Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules specifically enables counting of contractual service upon substantive appointment in a pensionable establishment.

Since the doctors served against sanctioned posts and were inducted without a break in service (except for specific cases), the Court held that a purely formalistic exclusion of this period for pension would defeat the social security object of pension.

The Court clarified that this does not shift employees from the New Pension Scheme (NPS) to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) if Rule 14(2)(c) mandates NPS, but it does allow the pre-2009 years to count toward the total "qualifying service" length.

However, the contractual service rendered against sanctioned posts must be counted toward "qualifying service" for pension, subject to fulfillment of conditions in the CCS (Pension) Rules.

Specific directions: W.P.(C) 1265/2018 and 5221/2018 were dismissed regarding seniority but affirmed for pensionary re-computation.

W.P.(C) 167/2019 and 4929/2019 were partly allowed to include actual service periods for pension calculation.

The GNCTD was directed to complete the re-computation of qualifying service within twelve weeks.