* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 10.11.2025

Pronounced on: 22.12.2025

+ W.P.(C) 1371/2018

THE ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. V.S.R. Krishna and Mr.V.

Shashank Kumar, Advs.

versus

DR. MADHU BHARDWAJ .....Respondent

Through: Ms. Pallavi Parmar, Mr.Chirayu

Jain, Ms. Raksha Awasya and

Ms. Tanishqua Dhar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

J U D G M E N T

MADHU JAIN, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), in O.A. No. 4120/2013, titled Dr. Madhu Bhardwaj v. AIIMS., whereby, the learned Tribunal disposed of the O.A. filed by

the respondent herein with the following directions:

“8. In view of above observations, I issue the

followingdirections totherespondent:

I) Take into account the services rendered by the applicant as Sr. Research Fellow from February, 1979 to April, 1983 for computing her qualifying years of service for the purpose of pensionary benefits in accordance when the decision of governing body of Allies dated

07.09.2002(Annexure-B)

II) Compute the applicant's qualifying years of service in accordance with Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. While doing so, keep in mindthedirectioncontainedin(I)supra.

III) If the applicant is found to have rendered adequate qualifying years of service in the light of (I)& (II), supra, grant her pension w.e.f.April,2003.

IV) Do not to recover any amount in lieu of the notice period as there has been inexplicable delay at the end of the respondent in deciding on the request of applicant for voluntaryretirement dated27.02.2003.”

2. Also in challenge is the Order dated 18.08.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal in R.A. No. 183/2017 in O.A. No. 4120/2013, whereby the review application filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed as being found devoid of any substance.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The factual matrix of the present petition is that the respondent had initially served as a Senior Research Fellow from February 1979 to April 1983, under a research project sponsored by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and implemented at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), that is, the petitioner herein. The said appointment was under the aegis of ICMR.

4. Upon completion of the said fellowship, the respondent was appointed to the post of Clinical Psychologist with the petitioner in April 1983.

5. During her tenure, the respondent availed various categories of leave, including earned leave, half-pay leave, and extraordinary leave without pay between 1997 and 2002, which were duly regularised by the petitioner.

6. The respondent last attended her duties on 30.10.2002, after which she remained absent.

7. Consequently, the petitioner, by its Memorandum dated 27.01.2003, directed her to report back to duty immediately, failing which disciplinary action would be initiated. In response, the respondent submitted a letter dated 27.02.2003, expressing her intention to seek voluntary retirement from service (VRS) on personal grounds. We quote the said communication below:

“This is in response to office memorandum No. F 6-29/83- Estt.I. dated January 27, 2003. I continue to have medical and personal problems due to which I am unable to join my duties. I had joined this Institute in February 1979 in the department of Paediatric surgery and worked on research projects till I was regularised on the position of Clinical Psychologist in April, 1983, I have now completed 20 years of qualifying service, including the research period. Under the compelling circumstances I would like to take voluntary retirement from the position of Clinical Psychologist.…”

8. Thereafter, by her letter dated 27.04.2003 addressed to the petitioner, the respondent stated as under:

“This is in continuation to my letter dated February 27,2003 requesting for voluntar