"Particular year" in service rules cannot be restricted to "calendar year" absent specific definition.

The respondents served as Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs) on a contractual basis with the Directorate of Prosecution, GNCTD

They applied for permanent recruitment to 80 APP posts advertised by the UPSC in 2021, seeking age relaxation under an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 11 June 2019

Following a prior High Court directive to grant relaxation as a one-time measure, the GNCTD rejected the respondents' candidature.

The rejection was based on the interpretation that the respondents failed to complete 180 days of service within a "calendar year" (January to December), as required by the OM

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) set aside this rejection, holding that "particular year" should not be restricted to "calendar year"

The GNCTD challenged the CAT’s common judgment dated 1 July 2025 before the Delhi High Court

The court examined Para 2(II) of the OM dated 11 June 2019, which grants contractual employees a one-time age relaxation of up to five years, provided they worked at least 180 days in a "particular year"

the established principle of administrative law that if an ambiguity exists in a service rule or administrative instruction, the benefit of such ambiguity must be extended to the employee rather than the department

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the OM does not explicitly define "particular year" as a "calendar year"

It noted that the GNCTD’s own administrative records—including APARs, salary disbursements, and income tax deductions—are maintained on a financial year basis

Additionally, the court observed that since contractual engagements are not strictly aligned with the start of a calendar year, a rigid interpretation would be unreasonable and would deny employees benefits based on arbitrary timelines

The Court highlighted that experience certificates are often issued based on academic or financial years, making the respondent’s contention for a broader interpretation of "year" (as any continuous 12-month period) more consistent with departmental practice

Since the petitioner could not produce any instruction or precedent requiring "year" to mean "calendar year," the court found the GNCTD's interpretation to be strained and unnatural

The Court concluded that any ambiguity in the OM must result in a favorable construction for the employee

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petitions in limine, affirming the Tribunal's decision