Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the reversion of Dr. Prari Mohan Misra, respondent, from the post of Director of Fisheries to Joint Director by the State of Orissa. The respondent was initially appointed as Director of Fisheries on an ad-hoc basis on August 12, 1971. By order dated July 22, 1972, he was directed to continue temporarily until further orders. The Government later took a policy decision to appoint an Indian Administrative Service officer to the post of Director of Fisheries, and by notification dated March 18, 1977, the respondent was reverted to the post of Joint Director. The respondent voluntarily retired from service on December 16, 1977. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the reversion was valid in law. The respondent contended that his appointment was made after consultation with and concurrence of the Public Service Commission and therefore must be deemed regular; consequently, reversion without enquiry and without opportunity for misconduct was illegal. The State argued that the respondent held only an ad-hoc/temporary position and that the policy decision justified reversion. The Supreme Court examined the orders and found that no order had been communicated to the respondent appointing him in a substantive capacity as Director. The only order in his favour was the temporary continuation order of July 22, 1972, which expressly stated that he would continue temporarily until further orders in terms of the ad-hoc appointment. The Court held that mere prolonged continuous ad-hoc service does not ripen into regular service to claim permanent or substantive status. The respondent remained on ad-hoc basis until further orders. Since the Government had taken a policy decision to appoint an IAS officer, the reversion was held to be perfectly legal and valid. However, noting that the respondent had continued in the post of Director and discharged his duties from August 12, 1971, the Court directed, as a mark of good gesture but not as a precedent, that the appellants give him pensionary benefits computing his pay as if he voluntarily retired as a Director from December 16, 1977. The Tribunal's application was dismissed, the appeal disposed of accordingly, and no costs were ordered.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Ad-hoc Appointment - Regularisation/Permanency - Prolonged continuous ad-hoc service does not ripen into regular service to claim permanent or substantive status - General Service Law (No specific Act cited) - Respondent was appointed as Director of Fisheries on ad-hoc basis and continued temporarily until further orders; no order communicated appointing him in a substantive capacity; the Court held that mere prolonged continuous ad-hoc service does not confer permanency and reversion was legal (Paras 3-4). B) Service Law - Reversion - Validity of Reversion Without Enquiry - Reversion of an ad-hoc/temporary employee without disciplinary enquiry is valid when no substantive right to the post exists - General Service Law (No specific Act cited) - The respondent claimed his appointment after consultation with the Public Service Commission was regular and reversion without enquiry was illegal; the Court rejected this because the only order was temporary continuation, and upheld reversion; it directed pensionary benefits as a good gesture, not precedent (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reversion of the respondent from the post of Director of Fisheries to Joint Director was valid in law; whether prolonged ad-hoc service confers permanent or substantive status.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the reversion was perfectly legal and valid. The Tribunal's application (T.A.No.50/90) was dismissed and the appeal disposed of accordingly. As a mark of good gesture but not as a precedent, the appellants were directed to give the respondent pensionary benefits computing his pay as if he voluntarily retired as a Director from December 16, 1977. No costs were ordered.
Law Points
- Ad-hoc service does not ripen into regular service
- reversion of ad-hoc appointee valid without enquiry
- no communication of substantive appointment
- pensionary relief ex gratia not precedent
