IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that re-employment must be substantive, not contractual, to entitle an ex-serviceman to pensionary benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 18.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

"(a) Allow this Writ Petition.

(b) Quash and set aside the impugned judgments/ orders dt. 30.04.2015 and 02.09.2015 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench), New- Delhi.

(c) Direct and order the Respondents to treat the Petitioner as a regularly appointed/re-employed ex-serviceman and declare him as having superannuated from their services w.e.f 13.06.2013.

(d) Direct and order the Respondents to grant the Petitioner all eligible retiral benefits for 13 years of completed service in civilian establishment, including pension, gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension for the period of reemployment.

(e) Award cost of litigation to the petitioner.

(f) Pass any other or further order as deemed appropriate."

2. It is stated that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated April 30, 2015 and September 2, 2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi ("Tribunal") in Original Application No.2547/2013 ("OA") and Review Application No.193/2015 ("RA") respectively.

3. The facts noted from the petition are that the petitioner joined Indian Army on January 05, 1970. He retired from Army on February 01, 1998 while he was holding the post of ECG, Technician after completing 28 years of service. The Delhi Health Services under the Government of NCT of Delhi had issued an advertisement dated February 19, 2000, inviting applications for appointment of Technician in different streams on contract basis. The petitioner applied for the post and participated in the interview process. He was selected which resulted in his appointment on the post of Technician on contract basis in terms of office order dated May 11, 2000. His initial appointment was for a period of six months/till attaining the age of 65 years or till appointment of regular incumbent, whichever is earlier.

4. Subsequently in terms of corrigendum, the age of 65 years was changed to 62 years. There is no dispute that the appointment of the petitioner continued, though the same was on contractual basis. In the year 2007, the respondents issued a circular dated September 14, 2007, to engage paramedical staff in the Government hospitals on contract basis. It is in the wake of the Circular, the petitioner was called upon to indicate whether he was prepared to function on contractual basis or not. The petitioner gave his consent vide letter dated June 03, 2008. This resulted in the appointment of the petitioner converted as a contractual engagement vide order dated August 6, 2008. The petitioner filed the OA being 2505/2008 to question the aforesaid order as it had the effect of reducing his basic pay from Rs. 4800 to Rs. 4500. The Tribunal on November 28, 2008, dismissed the OA with liberty to petitioner to file fresh OA with better particulars. It may be stated here that the respondents discontinued the services of the petitioner vide order dated February 11, 2010. This discontinuance/termination was challenged by the petitioner by filing an OA No.823/2010. The Tribunal allowed the OA with the following directions:-

"We would accordingly allow this OA. The impugned termination of his services vide letter No.F.2(443)/DHS / RTRMH /2000 /1124 dated 11.02.2010 (AnnexureA-1) shall quashed and the same applies to the conversion of the nature of employment of the applicant herein to Contractual. The applicant shall also be entitled to all the relevant consequential relief as well which shall be disbursed within three months from today." (emphasis supplied)

5. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner was reemployed in service and was granted the replacement pay scale as recommended by 6th CPC. On attainment of the age of 62 years, the services of the petitioner came to an end. In this background, the petitioner filed another OA being 2547/2013, wherein he sought the following prayers:-

"(a) to acce