STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. versus DR. PYARI MOHAN MISRA

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 06-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

.._ 
~ 
A 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. 
.. 
v. 
DR. PYARI MOHAN MISRA 
JANUARY 6, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
'-( 
S e1Vice Law : Appointment on ad hoc basis to the post of Director, 
Fisheries-Subsequent policy decision of Government to appoint !AS Officer 
to man the post-Reversion of ad-hoc appointee-Validity of-Held : Rever-
c sion legal and valid. 
The Respondent was appointed as Director of Fisheries on August 
12, 1971 on ad hoc basis. By order date July 22, 1972 he was asked to 
continue until further orders. The State Government had taken a policy 
decision to appoint an I.A.S. Officer to man the post of Director, Fisheries. 
~ ..... 
D 
By notification dated March 18, 1977, the Government had reverted 
the respondent to the post of Joint Director. The respondent voluntarily 
retired from service on December 16, 1977. 
..,_ 
In this appeal by the State Government against the judgment of the 
E 
Tribunal, the validity of the reversion of the respondent was in issue. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that he was appointed 
after consultation and with concurrence of the Public Service Commission 
and his appointment must be deemed to be a regular appointment and 
·-r 
r
F 
therefore without conducting an enquiry and an opportunity for miscon-
duct, ordering his reversion was illegal. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Admittedly, there is no order communicated to the 
i 
G 
respondent appointing him in a substantive capacity as Director. The only 
order passed in his favour was of July 22, 1972, which 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. Mere prolonged 
-
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 
H uniil further orders. Since the Government had taken policy decision to 
104 
.,. 
r 
• 
.. 
STATEOFORISSAv. P.M.MISRA(DR.) 
105 
appoint an I.A.S. Officer to the post of Director, the respondent was rightly A 
reverted to the post of Joint Director. [106-B] 
2. 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 B 
as if he voluntarily retired as Director from December 16, 1977. [106-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1152 of 
1995. 
From Judgment and Order dated 12.4.93 of the Orissa Administra-
C 
tive Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in T.A. N. 50 of 1990. 
AK. Panda for the Appellants. 
Janaranjan Das for the Respondent. 
D 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
Leave granted. 
E 
This appeal arises from the order dated April 12, 1993 passed by the 
Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, in T.A No. 50/90. Admit-
tedly, 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 F 
the government had taken policy decision to appoint an I.AS. office to 
man the post of the Director, Fisheries. By Notification dated March 18, 
1977, the Government has reverted the respondent from the post of Direc-
tor to the post of Joint Director. The respondent had voluntarily retired 
from service on 1~.12.77. The only controversy is whether the reversion of G 
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 con-
sultation 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 H 
106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
find no force in the submission. 
~ 
Admittedly, there is no order communicated to the respondent ap-
pointing 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 
I ...__
continue temporarily until further orders in terms of the order of appoint-
• 
B ment made oq. ad-ho

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.