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