Supreme Court of India
STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. versus DR. PYARI MOHAN MISRA
- Decided
- 6 January 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [1995] 1 S.C.R. 104 · 1995 INSC 10
- Also cited as
- AIR 1995 SC 974
- JT 1995 (2) SC 54
- (1995) 3 SCC 123
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Delay condoned. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
p. 105, margin D
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.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 Director 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 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.
pp. 105–106, margin E
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 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. 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. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. G.N. Appeal disposed.
p. 106, margin A