The Supreme Court has held that past service rendered by temporary or ad hoc government employees may be counted for pensionary benefits, but cannot ordinarily be considered for claiming seniority over candidates appointed through regular direct recruitment.

A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar clarified that employees appointed on a temporary or ad hoc basis outside the prescribed recruitment rules cannot claim seniority from the date of their initial appointment merely because their services were subsequently regularised.

The Court reiterated that candidates appointed through regular recruitment in accordance with the applicable rules are generally entitled to seniority from the date of their appointment, whereas temporary or ad hoc appointees cannot claim the same benefit for the period preceding regularisation.

Dispute Over Seniority of Tamil Nadu Government Employees

The case arose from temporary appointments made by the Tamil Nadu Government during a recruitment ban imposed on ministerial posts between 1981 and 1983. M. Prema and other employees were appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955.

Meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission conducted a competitive examination for Group IV posts in November 1983, and the selected candidates were appointed between 1985 and 1987.

The State subsequently regularised the special appointees with effect from June 26, 1984. Clause 10 of the Special Absorption Rules, 1987, provided that these employees would rank below the 1983 batch of direct recruits, irrespective of the direct recruits’ dates of appointment.

The dispute also involved compassionate appointees S. Prem Kumar and T.A. Kannappa, who were appointed as Junior Assistants in 1985 and later regularised with effect from their initial appointment dates.

The Madras High Court had held that direct recruits would rank above special appointees but allowed seniority between direct recruits and compassionate appointees to be determined by their initial appointment dates. The rival groups challenged different aspects of the decision before the Supreme Court.

Direct Recruits Entitled to Seniority Under Recruitment Rules

The Supreme Court relied on the principles laid down in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, distinguishing regular appointments made in accordance with recruitment rules from temporary or ad hoc appointments made as stopgap arrangements.

The Court observed that government employees appointed through the prescribed procedure must ordinarily rank senior to those who entered service through temporary or stopgap arrangements.

It clarified that although certain decisions have recognised the benefit of pre-regularisation service for pensionary purposes, such recognition does not automatically entitle temporary or ad hoc employees to claim seniority over regular recruits.

The Court accordingly held that the past service of the special appointees and compassionate appointees could not be counted to grant them seniority over direct recruits.

Compassionate Appointees Cannot Automatically Rank Above Direct Recruits

The Supreme Court also disagreed with the Madras High Court’s decision to place compassionate appointees above direct recruits merely because their initial appointment dates were earlier.

The Court noted that compassionate appointment is an exception to the ordinary recruitment framework under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such appointments cannot be used to disadvantage candidates who entered the service through regular recruitment.

Accordingly, the Court held that S. Prem Kumar and T.A. Kannappa could not rank above the 1983 batch of direct recruits.

Seniority Between Special and Compassionate Appointees

Regarding the inter se seniority between special appointees and compassionate appointees, the Court directed that it should be determined on the basis of their respective dates of regularisation.

The Bench observed that seniority disputes should be resolved through a practical approach, unless the applicable recruitment rules expressly prescribe a different method.

The Court emphasised that, where the rules do not provide a specific methodology, the date of regularisation should ordinarily be followed to determine inter se seniority among temporary, ad hoc and compassionate appointees.

Supreme Court Modifies Madras High Court Judgment

The Supreme Court modified the Madras High Court’s judgment and held that the compassionate appointees could not be placed above the 1983 batch of direct recruits. It also clarified the principles governing the seniority of special and compassionate appointees.

The ruling reiterates the distinction between counting past service for pensionary benefits and claiming seniority over employees appointed through regular recruitment.

Case Title: M. PREMA & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (with connected cases)
Citation: 2026 INSC 1105
Bench: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar

Representation:-

For the Appellants: Mr. R. Subramanian Senior Advocate, Mr. V. Prabhakar Senior Advocate, Ms. Jyoti Parashar Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Tiwari Advocate, Mr. Naresh Kumar AOR, Ms. Rohini Musa Advocate, Ms. Binu Tamta AOR, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan AOR, Mr. P. R. Kovilan Poongkuntran Advocate, Mrs. Geetha Kovilan AOR

For the Respondents: Ms. Rupali Francesca Samuel AOR, Mr. Shikhar Aggarwal Advocate, Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy AOR, Mr. Shilp Vinod Advocate, Ms. Supriya Advocate