Holding

A prolonged ad‑hoc appointment does not ripen into a regular appointment; consequently, the reversion of the respondent to Joint Director was legal and valid.

Summary

Dr. Pyari Mohan Misra was appointed Director of Fisheries in Orissa on an ad‑hoc basis on 12 August 1971 and was directed to continue temporarily until further orders on 22 July 1972. The State Government later decided to fill the post with an IAS officer and, by notification on 18 March 1977, reverted Misra to the post of Joint Director; he voluntarily retired on 16 December 1977. Misra contended that his appointment, made after consultation with the Public Service Commission, should be deemed regular and that his reversion without an enquiry was illegal. The Supreme Court held that a prolonged ad‑hoc appointment does not automatically become a substantive one and that the reversion was legally valid. However, the Court, as a gesture of goodwill, ordered that Misra be granted pension benefits calculated as if he had retired as Director. The appeal was therefore disposed of, with no costs awarded.

Issues considered

Whether an ad‑hoc appointment that continues for several years becomes a regular/substantive appointment.
Whether the reversion of an ad‑hoc appointee to a lower post is valid without a disciplinary enquiry.
Whether pension benefits can be awarded as if the appointee retired from the higher post.

Subjects

ad hoc appointmentregular appointmentreversionpublic service commissionpension benefitsadministrative lawDirector of Fisheries

Judgment

.._
~

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
therefore without conducting an enquiry and an opportunity for miscon-
F duct, ordering his reversion was illegal.

Disposing of the appeal, this Court
i
HELD : 1.1. Admittedly, there is no order communicated to the
respondent appointing him in a substantive capacity as Director. The only
G 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
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.

r 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
the respondent is valid in law. It is pointed out by Mr. J.R. Das, learned G

..
• 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
I...__
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 appoint- •
B ment made oq. ad-hoc basis on August 12, 1971. In other words, mere
pr,olonged 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 as an I.AS., he was rightly reverted to the post of Joint Director.
c Accordingly, we hold that his reversion is perfectly legal and valid. How-
ever, the stark facts remain that he continued in the post of Director and
discharged his duties as Director from August 12, 1971. In these cir-
.;
i;-
cumstances, as a mark of good gesture but not as a precedent, the appel-
lants are directed to give him pensionary benefits computing his pay as if
he voluntarily retired as a Director from December 16, 1977. All the
D proceedings now stand concluded. The T.A. stands dismissed. The appeal '""' .
is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

G.N. Appeal disposed.