[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Dr. Khursheed Khatoon on 8 April, 2026
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~100
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4645/2026, CM APPL. 22648/2026 & CM APPL.
22649/2026
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak and Mr.
Chetanya Puri, SPC with Mr. Mohit Gupta
and Ms. Garima Mehta, Advs.
versus
DR. KHURSHEED KHATOON .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr.
Yogesh Kumar Mahur, Mr. Harkesh
Parashar and Ms. Yogita, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 08.04.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The respondent was appointed as Assistant Research Officer in
the Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine1 in 1986 on ad
hoc basis against a substantive vacancy. She was re-appointed in
1996. There was a break in service between 1986 and 1996. However,
after 1996, she continued on ad hoc basis till her services were
regularised in February 2004.
2. It is not in dispute that, if the respondent were to be entitled to
1 "CCRUM" hereinafter
count her ad hoc service for the purposes of pension, she would be
entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme2 as the New Pension
Scheme3 was introduced w.e.f. 1 January 2004.
3. The respondent represented to the CCRUM for counting of her
ad hoc service for reckoning her pensionary benefits and, accordingly,
for extending her the benefit of the OPS.
4. As the CCRUM did not accede to the respondent's request, she
moved the Central Administrative Tribunal4 by way of OA 91/2025.
5. By judgment dated 14 July 2025, the Tribunal has allowed the
OA in the following terms:
"6. To summarize the applicant was appointed on ad-hoc basis
in the year 1996 and, thereafter, regularized in February, 2004.
Evidently, it was not an illegal appointment. She was appointed in
pursuance to public advertisements issued against the substantive
post, nevertheless on ad-hoc basis, the appointment of the applicant
was extended, from time to time, in spite of availability of
substantive vacancies, reason for which has not been assigned. It
would be worthwhile to reproduce para 4 of the DOP&T OM dated
03.03.2023:-
"4. The matter has been examined in consultation
with the Department of Financial Services, Department of
Personnel & Training, Department of Expenditure and
Department of Legal Affairs in the light of the various
representations/references and decisions of the Courts in
this regard. It has now been decided that, in all cases
where the Central Government civil employee has been
appointed against a post or vacancy which was
advertised/notified for recruitment/appointment, prior to
the date of notification for National Pension System i.e.
2 "OPS" hereinafter
3 "NPS" hereinafter
4 "Tribunal" hereinafter
22.12.2003 and is covered under the National Pension
System on joining service on or after 01.01.2004, may be
given a one-time option to be covered under the
CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021). This option may
be exercised by the concerned Government servants latest
by 31.08.2023."
7. The provision of the DOP&T OM dated 03.03.2023, which
is reproduced hereinabove, specifically notes, that in case the
selection exercise was commenced before 22.12.2003, the
employee will be given an option to exercise an option to be
covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. The Co-ordinate
Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 240/2021 decided on
02.06.2023, relying upon the same OM has allowed the Original
Application. It may not be out of place to record that in the said
Original Application, one of us [Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul,
Member (A)] was a Member. The order was assailed by the
respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in in W.P. (C)
1691/2024. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has confirmed the
order passed by the co-ordinate Bench. Review thereto has also
been dismissed."
6. Aggrieved thereby, the CCRUM has approached this Court by
means of the present writ petition.
7. We have heard Mr. Himanshu Pathak and Mr. Puri, learned
SPCs for the petitioners. As there was some difficulty in Mr. Pathak
connecting, Mr. Puri advanced arguments.
8. Mr. Puri submits that the Tribunal has relied on a judgment
passed by this Court in WP (C) 1691/20245, which is presently subject
matter of an appeal before the Supreme Court and has, therefore, not
yet attained finality.
9. As against this, Mr. Chhibber, learned Counsel for the
5 Judgment dated 6 February 2024 in Union of India through Secretary & Anr v Late Dr. Nusrat Hameed
Khan through Lrs Mrs. Zeenat Hameed Khan & Ors.
respondent, submits that the issue is no longer re integra, in view of
the decision of the Supreme Court in S.D. Jayaprakash v. UOI6 which
has, thereafter, been followed recently by a Coordinate Division
Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions headed by GNCTD v.
Dr. Yoginder Gupta7.
10. In the said decisions, the Court has held that a period of
contractual service, if continuous till regularisation, would be entitled
to be counted towards pensionary benefits. We may, to advantage,
reproduce paras 2, 6 and 8 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
S.D. Jayaprakash and paras 3, 57, 61 and 71 of the decision in Dr.
Yoginder Gupta, thus:
Paras from S.D. Jayaprakash
"2. These appeals arise from the Karnataka High Court's order
dated 23.03.2021 by which it held that the appellants, who were
initially appointed on contractual basis and subsequently
regularised, will not be entitled to seniority, service benefits, and
pension for the period of their contractual service. Upon
consideration of the relevant rules and the decision of this Court
in State of H.P. v. Sheela Devi8, we have partly allowed the
present appeals and directed the respondent, i.e., Union of India to
grant pensionary benefit to the appellants in accordance with law.
*****
6. Before commencing our analysis, it is necessary to note the
scope of prayers made before the CAT and High Court, and before
this Court. The prayer before the CAT is for regularisation with
retrospective effect, protection of pay, and grant of seniority and
service and pension benefits by counting the period of contractual
service. Pursuant to the High Court's impugned order dated
6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 973
7 Judgment dated 10 March 2026 in WP(C) 1265/2018
8 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272
23.03.2021, only the appellants' pay has been protected while their
prayers for seniority, service and pension benefits by including the
contractual period have been rejected. The submissions before this
Court have been limited to the grant of pensionary benefits by
including the contractual period, through reliance on the decision
in Sheela Devi (supra). The issues relating to grant of
retrospective regularisation, seniority and service benefits during
the contractual period have not been argued before us. We are
therefore confining ourselves to the issue of pension.
*****
8. This rule fell for consideration and interpretation in Sheela
Devi (supra), where this Court held that although Rule 2(g) of the
Pension Rules excludes contractual employees from their
application, Rule 17 applies once such contractual employee is
regularised on a later date. The effect is that upon regularisation,
the Pension Rules become applicable and Rule 17 requires that past
service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account for
calculating pension. In this light, and considering that Rule 17
requires the regularised employee to exercise an option to either
retain the Government's contribution to Contributory Provident
Fund, or to refund such amount or forgo the same if they have not
been paid in lieu of counting the service period for which such
benefits may have been payable, this Court in Sheela Devi (supra)
issued the following directions:
"11. In view of the above reasoning, this court is of the
opinion that there is no merit in the appeal however, the
following directions are issued: --
(i) The state shall take immediate steps to
indicate the mode and manner of exercising option
by all the employees concerned (who had been
regularized after spells of contractual employment)
regardless of the dates on which they were engaged
i.e., prior to the year 2003 or subsequently, within a
time frame, of within eight weeks from today.
(ii) After receiving the options within the time
indicated in the notice, the concerned employee(s)
who exercise the relevant options should be notified
about the amounts they would have to remit in case
any amount towards contribution is required,
clearly.
(iii) The options should be processed and
completed within eight weeks from the last date of
receiving options.
(iv) Time limit for payment too should be
indicated and entire process should be completed
within four months and all orders fixing pensions or
family pension as the case may be, shall be issued."
From Dr. Yoginder Gupta
3. By the Impugned Order dated 23.05.2017, passed in O.A.
Nos.604/2014 and 238/2015, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the
concerned Applicants for the grant of seniority by counting their
contractual service, while directing that such period be considered
only for the limited purpose of qualifying service towards pension,
in accordance with the applicable rules. Further, vide the Impugned
Order dated 23.12.2021 passed in O.A. No.3556/2018, the Tribunal
directed to consider the period spent on contractual service for the
purpose of qualifying service towards pension, however, it said that
the same shall be subject to the decision of this Court in the Writ
Petition filed assailing the decision of the Tribunal in O.A.
No.604/2018, i.e., W.P.(C) 1265/2018.
*****
57. The next and more nuanced issue pertains to pensionary
benefits. In W.P.(C) 1265/2018, the Tribunal directed that the
period rendered by the Applicants on contractual basis be taken
into consideration towards qualifying service for pension, subject
to and in accordance with the applicable rules.
*****
61. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions indicates that
the CCSP Rules do not adopt an inflexible approach in excluding
pre-regularisation service. While Rule 13 provides that qualifying
service ordinarily commences from the date of first appointment to
a post, whether substantive, officiating or temporary, it expressly
permits counting of temporary or officiating service where it is
followed, without interruption, by substantive appointment.
*****
71. This Court, therefore, finds no infirmity in the approach
adopted by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos.604/2014 and 238/2015 in
directing consideration of past contractual service for pension,
subject to satisfaction of statutory preconditions. The direction
neither creates a right dehors the 2009 DHS Rules nor expands
their scope, it merely ensures that service, if otherwise admissible
under the CCSP Rules, is not excluded by a mechanical or hyper-
technical application of the statutory scheme."
11. The decision to count the respondent's ad hoc service towards
her pensionary benefits is, therefore, in sync with the exposition of the
law by the Supreme Court in S.D. Jayaprakash and by the Coordinate
Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Yoginder Gupta.
12. We do not, therefore, find this to be a case deserving
interference. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
APRIL 8, 2026/AR
