of Orissa & Anr Vs. Dr. Prari Mohan Misra
 INSC 119 (6
K. Ramaswamy, K. Venkatachala N. (J)
JT 1995 (2) 54
Delay condoned. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
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.
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.
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.
find no force in the submission.
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 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.
appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.