Prior contractual service must be counted as qualifying service for pension, subject to applicable pension rules.

The applicant was appointed as a Medical Officer/Junior Specialist by the Government of NCT of Delhi on a contractual basis on 19 May 2000.

She was subsequently taken on the strength of Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital as Junior Specialist (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) with effect from 28 March 2002.

After obtaining a no-objection certificate, she applied for and was selected to the post of Specialist Grade II in the Central Health Services.

Her resignation from the contractual post was accepted with effect from 14 February 2007, and she joined the new post on 15 February 2007.

She was later encadred in the Delhi Health Services, with the respondents treating 23 December 2009 as the relevant date for pensionary benefits.

The applicant sought recognition of her contractual service from 19 May 2000 to 23 December 2009 as qualifying service for pension and consequential conversion from the National Pension System to the Old Pension Scheme under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

She relied on the Tribunal’s decision in Dr. Yoginder Gupta v. GNCTD, O.A. Nos. 604/2014 and 238/2015, dated 23 May 2017.

That decision was challenged before the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 1265/2018, which upheld the direction to consider contractual service for qualifying service in accordance with the applicable pension rules.

The respondents opposed the claim, contending, inter alia, that the applicant had served on contract, her resignation was not a technical resignation, and her earlier service could not be counted under the Delhi Health Service Rules.

Whether the applicant’s contractual service from 19 May 2000 to 23 December 2009 could be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Whether the applicant was entitled to conversion from the National Pension System to the Old Pension Scheme on the basis of the Tribunal’s decision in Dr. Yoginder Gupta and the Delhi High Court’s judgment in W.P. (C) No. 1265/2018.

Whether the respondents could deny the applicant the benefit of the earlier decisions on the ground that her initial appointment was contractual and that she had not undergone the same suitability process as other employees.

The Tribunal applied Rules 3(1)(q), 13 and 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Rule 3(1)(q) defines “qualifying service”; Rule 13 provides that qualifying service ordinarily commences from the date an employee takes charge of a post to which he or she is appointed substantively or in a temporary capacity; and Rule 17 prescribes the conditions subject to which service rendered on a contractual or temporary basis may be counted.

The Tribunal relied on Dr. Yoginder Gupta v. GNCTD, which held that contractual/ad hoc service may be counted towards qualifying service for pension, subject to compliance with Rule 17, although it cannot ordinarily be counted for seniority or promotion.

It also followed the Delhi High Court’s decision in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Dr. Yoginder Gupta, W.P. (C) No. 1265/2018, dated 10 March 2026, which held that contractual service could be considered for pensionary qualifying service in accordance with the applicable rules, while upholding 23 December 2009 as the date of induction under the Delhi Health Services Rules.

Rule 9(4) of the Delhi Health Service (Allopathy) Rules, 2009 was treated as restricting the use of past contractual service for seniority and promotion, but not as excluding its consideration for pension where the CCS (Pension) Rules were otherwise satisfied.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was similarly situated to the employees covered by Dr. Yoginder Gupta.

Although the respondents relied on the contractual nature of her initial appointment, the Tribunal distinguished the purposes of seniority and promotion from the purpose of pension.

The earlier decisions had held that Rule 9(4) of the 2009 Delhi Health Service Rules prevented contractual service from being counted for seniority or promotion, but did not bar its consideration as qualifying service for pension under Rules 3(1)(q), 13 and 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

The Delhi High Court had affirmed this legal position and held that the direction to consider contractual service for pension did not warrant interference.

Since the applicant’s claim was materially identical and the High Court judgment had attained finality, the Tribunal held that the respondents could not deny her the same benefit merely because she had initially served on contract or had not undergone the suitability assessment relied upon by the respondents.

It declared the applicant entitled to the benefit of the Tribunal’s order dated 23 May 2017 in O.A. No. 604/2014 and the Delhi High Court’s judgment in W.P. (C) No. 1265/2018.

The respondents were directed to count the applicant’s service from 19 May 2000, the date of her initial appointment, until 23 December 2009 for calculating pensionary benefits and to convert her from the National Pension System to the Old Pension Scheme under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

The directions were to be complied with within six weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.