Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DR. PRARI MOHAN MISRA
DATE OF JUDGMENT06/02/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1995 (2) 54
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Delay condoned. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from the order dated April 12, 1993
passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar,
in T.A.No.50/90. Admittedly, the respondent was appointed as
Director of Fisheries on August 12, 1971, on ad-hoc basis.
Thereafter, by order dated July 22, 1972, he was directed to
continue temporarily until further orders. It would appear
that the government had taken policy decision to appoint an
I.A.S. officer to man the post of the Director, Fisheries.
By Notification dated March 18, 1977, the Government has
reverted the respondent from the post of Director to the
post of Joint Director. The respondent had voluntarily
retired from service on 16.12.77. The only controversy is
whether the reversion of the respondent is valid in law. It
is pointed out by Mr.J.R.Das, learned counsel for the
respondent, that the respondent was appointed after
consultation and with the concurrence of the Public Service
Commission. Therefore, his appointment must be deemed to be
a regular appointment. Thereby without conducting an
enquiry and an opportunity for misconduct, the reversion of
the respondent to the post of Joint Director, is illegal.
We find no force in the submisSion.
4. Admittedly, there is no order communicated to the
respondent appointing him in a substantive capacity as
Director. The only order passed in his favour was of July
22, 1972. That order clearly shows that he would continue
temporarily until further orders in terms of the order of
appointment made on ad-hoc basis on August 12, 1971. In
other words, mere prolonged of continuous ad-hoc service
does not ripen into a regular service to claim permanent or
substantive status. He would remain to be on ad-hoc basis
until further orders. Since the government had taken policy
decision to appoint an I.A.S., he was rightly reverted to
the post of Joint Director. Accordingly, we hold that his
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
reversion is perfectly legal and valid. However, the stark
facts remain that he continued in the post of Director and
discharged his duties as Director from August 12, 1971. In
these circumstances, as a mark of good gesture but not as a
precedent, the appellants are directed to give him
pensionary benefits computing his pay as if he voluntarily
retired as a Director from December 16, 1977. All the
proceedings now stand concluded. The T.A. stands dismissed.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
56