On September 15, 2025, a significant legal ruling was delivered in the matter of Mukesh Thakur versus GNCT of Delhi and Others under case number W.P.(C) 8001/2023. The dispute centered on an administrative denial of pay protection and the counting of past service for a government employee who had submitted a technical resignation to take up a new role. Resolving this grievance, the Court passed the order setting aside previous adverse decisions and reaffirming the legal sanctity of existing statutory frameworks over unapproved draft regulations. This Delhi High Court judgment serves as an essential precedent for civil servants navigating career transitions within government departments.
The petitioner began his career when he was appointed as a Nursing Orderly in the Directorate of Health Services on February 25, 2004. Shortly after, on December 28, 2005, he received a promotion to the post of Dresser. He later appeared in a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination conducted by the DSSSB. After successfully passing this examination, he was appointed to the position of Grade IV (DASS)/Junior Assistant (LDC) effective July 25, 2016. To facilitate this career progression, he submitted a technical resignation which the authorities accepted on July 20, 2016.
Following his transition, the petitioner submitted representations seeking the protection of his previous pay scale and the formal counting of his past service. The Finance Department forwarded his request to the General Administration Department for approval. However, the administration rejected the request. The authorities justified this rejection by claiming that his 2005 promotion to Dresser was premature. They argued that under newly circulated draft Recruitment Rules, a minimum qualifying service of four years was required for such a promotion. Although the Directorate of Health Services clarified that his promotion was entirely valid under the operative 1967 Recruitment Rules, the administration maintained its refusal.
Faced with this administrative roadblock, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. During the proceedings, the respondents admitted that the promotion complied with the 1967 guidelines but insisted that the draft rules disqualified his past service benefits. In an order dated March 7, 2023, the Tribunal dismissed the application, incorrectly holding that the petitioner lacked the required qualifying service. The petitioner subsequently filed a Review Application. In a surprising turn of events, the Tribunal dismissed the review on April 13, 2023, by citing the facts of an entirely different case. The High Court later noted this showed a complete non-application of mind by the Tribunal.
Challenging the Tribunal decisions, the petitioner filed a writ petition. The legal counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the 1967 Recruitment Rules did not mandate any specific qualifying service period for a promotion to the Dresser position. The promotion was never legally challenged and was fully authorized at the time it occurred. The respondents countered that the draft rules required four years of service and should dictate the outcome.
Evaluating the arguments, the Court found the stance of the respondents legally unsustainable. The promotion to the post of Dresser was granted in strict accordance with the Recruitment Rules of 1967. The Court highlighted that the mere circulation of draft or model rules cannot retroactively render a valid promotion illegal or void. Unapproved draft regulations do not hold the statutory power to strip an employee of benefits accrued under existing rules.
Ultimately, the Court passed the order setting aside the flawed Tribunal decisions from March and April 2023. The judges directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s case for pay protection and the counting of past service. This reconsideration must be based strictly on the 1967 Recruitment Rules, completely ignoring the proposed draft rules. The authorities were given a strict deadline of four weeks to complete this exercise. Furthermore, if the petitioner is found entitled to the financial relief, the government must release the funds within an additional four weeks, carrying an interest rate of six percent per annum.
Read the judgment here.