Valid termination orders create a break in service ineligible for regularization or counting towards service benefits.

The Petitioner, a doctor initially engaged on a contractual basis in 1996, sought a recall or modification of a judgment dated 10.03.2026.

In the original judgment, the Court held that while her contractual service would count toward pensionary benefits, she was not entitled to seniority for that period.

Crucially, the Court excluded the period between 23.11.2007 and 03.11.2010 from "qualifying service" because her contractual services had been terminated on 23.11.2007 due to unauthorized absence.

Although she was re-engaged following an interim order by the Supreme Court on 16.08.2010 and subsequently inducted into regular service under the Delhi Health Service (Allopathy) Rules, 2009, the termination order of 2007 was never set aside.

The Petitioner filed the present application arguing that the intervening break should be treated as "leave of the kind due" based on Rule 25 of the CCS (Leave) Rules and a prior 1998 Tribunal order.

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to treat the period of break in service (23.11.2007 to 03.11.2010) as continuous service for the purposes of seniority and pension.

2. Whether Rule 25 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, can be invoked to regularize a break in service caused by a termination order that was never quashed.

The Court applied the statutory framework of the Delhi Health Service (Allopathy) Rules, 2009, which governs the induction and seniority of doctors in the GNCTD.

Rule 25 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 confers enabling discretion upon authorities to treat absence as leave, but does not mandate the regularization of service breaks following a valid termination.

A termination order upheld by the High Court and not interfered with by the Supreme Court constitutes a definitive legal break in service based on the principle of finality of judicial orders.

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner’s claim for continuity of service was legally untenable because the termination order dated 23.11.2007 remained intact.

The Court noted that the Petitioner’s previous challenge to this termination had been dismissed by the Tribunal and the High Court, and the Supreme Court had not set those orders aside despite granting interim re-engagement.

Regarding the Petitioner’s reliance on a 1998 order (O.A. No. 2600/1997), the Court clarified that the direction to ignore "artificial breaks" applied only to minor administrative interruptions during the subsistence of a contract, not to a multi-year gap following a formal termination for cause.

The Court held that Rule 25 of the Leave Rules is discretionary and cannot be used to retrospectively regularize a period of absence when the individual was not even in service due to a valid termination.

The Petitioner is not entitled to seniority for her contractual period, and her qualifying service for pension must exclude the interregnum between 23.11.2007 and 03.11.2010.

The Petitioner remains entitled to pensionary benefits for the periods of actual service rendered before the termination and after the re-engagement, subject to statutory rules.